quote_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: a stale or missing fee schedule degrades all-in fields to FEE_UNVERIFIED (5.3), and the response never contains a probability field. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly or anything about auth or rate limits, but the degradation contract is the kind of detail most descriptions omit.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with real content, but it is a run-on dense with internal spec references ('T0', '5.1', '5.3', '5.5') that carry no meaning to an outside agent. Those tokens occupy space that parameter and usage guidance should fill.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description sensibly spends its words describing return contents, which is the right call. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage it leaves parameter meaning and call conditions uncovered, so it is only partially complete.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'For the stated size' loosely maps to size, and 'for event contracts' hints that outcome applies conditionally, but as_of and instrument_id are never explained, nor are formats or requiredness.

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 names a specific resource and its contents: bid/ask/computed mid, ALL-IN buy/sell cost, liquidity flag, depth, and resolution criteria. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself 'the only price-shaped object,' separating it from book_ingest and fee_schedule_get. The opaque 'T0' prefix and spec citations (5.1) are noise rather than clarity.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent gathers you call this when you need a price. No alternative is named among the 17 siblings (order_get, book_ingest, fee_schedule_get are all adjacent), and there is no when-not-to-use guidance. The 'never a probability field' note hints at a boundary but does not route the agent anywhere.

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