Futures quote

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Never mutates state' (reinforcing readOnlyHint=true), lists output fields (entry price, notional, etc.), and includes environment details (paper trading, virtual funds, not financial advice). This helps the agent understand exactly what the tool does and its constraints.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose and key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return fields mentioned. It also provides safety guidance, constraints, and environment context. The tool is simple, and the description equips an agent to use it correctly without gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions the leverage range and margin minimum briefly, but these are also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not add new meaning beyond the schema.

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 is for futures quotes, specifying 'Read-only futures quote: entry price, notional, size, liquidation price, and eligibility.' The verb 'quote' and resource 'futures' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'open_futures_position' and 'spot_quote' by emphasizing read-only behavior and futures context.

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?

The description provides clear guidance: 'Never mutates state — always quote before opening' and lists constraints ('leverage 1-20, marginMusd >= 10'). It also notes the paper trading environment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'pm_quote' or 'spot_quote', leaving some ambiguity in when to choose this tool over others.

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