get_quotes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must inform the agent about the tool's behavior. It does indicate the output (last price, daily change) and the source of inputs, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or whether it is read-only beyond the 'Get' verb. This is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and provide a needed prerequisite. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and how to obtain inputs. It could mention response structure or error behavior, but it is not incomplete for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the provenance of securityIds and quoteProvider ('Get the IDs from search_symbols first'), linking them to a concrete workflow, which exceeds the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get current quotes (last price, daily change) for securities by security ID.' It specifies both the action and the resource, and the mention of security ID differentiates it from sibling tools like search_symbols or get_security_fundamentals.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context by instructing to 'Get the IDs from search_symbols first,' establishing a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or offer alternatives, so it lacks the full exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.