Futures quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states read-only, no state mutation, paper trading only, and virtual funds. It also includes 'Not financial advice.' It could mention rate limits or data freshness, but core behavioral traits are clear.

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 sentences packed with information. The first sentence is front-loaded with purpose and output fields. The second sentence compresses constraints and context. No wasted words, but the density could be broken for readability.

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?

Given no output schema, it explains return fields. It covers constraints and paper trading context. It does not mention prerequisites or data source, but for a quote tool this is sufficient. It is complete for safe usage.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces leverage range (1-20) and margin minimum (10) but does not add significant meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain 'side' or 'coinId' further, but the schema already describes them minimally.

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 it is a read-only futures quote and lists specific output fields (entry price, notional, size, liquidation price, eligibility). It distinguishes itself from mutation tools like open_futures_position by stating 'Never mutates state' and is distinct from other quote tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'always quote before opening' implying use before opening a position. It sets context as paper trading with virtual funds. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which prevents a higher score.

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