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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles the most important trait: this is a non-mutating preview, not a swap or deposit. It does not disclose auth requirements, data freshness, or return shape, but the mutation boundary is clearly drawn.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the scoping constraint and the exclusion/alternative routing front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete on safety and routing, but it never explains how the basket is identified (e.g., session state) or what a preview returns. The agent is left to infer how to actually invoke it meaningfully.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax to explain, and the schema is empty by design; the description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Preview basket prices only') and immediately differentiates itself from swap and vault-deposit operations. It is clear and distinct from siblings like stocktoken_quote, though the term 'basket' itself is never defined.

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?

Explicitly states what this tool is NOT ('does not swap', 'not a vault deposit') and routes the agent to the correct alternative for the single-token case ('use stocktoken_quote then stocktoken_execute_plan'). When-not-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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