Futures quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. Description adds transparency about paper trading, virtual funds, execution policy, fee structure, and that the quote is a rehearsal cost. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes lengthy with detailed execution policy that may be extraneous for a quote tool. Could be more concise while retaining key constraints.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description is comprehensive: it lists returned fields, explains the paper trading context, execution costs, and what the quote represents. No gaps are apparent.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description repeats leverage and margin constraints but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a read-only futures quote with specific fields (entry price, notional, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from mutation tools by stating 'Never mutates state — always quote before opening.' This differentiates from sibling tools like open_futures_position.

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 usage context: use before opening a position, paper trading only, leverage and margin constraints. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling quote tools (spot_quote, pm_quote) but the paper trading focus and 'always quote before opening' give clear guidance.

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