Spot quote

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint by stating 'Never mutates state' and adds context about paper trading, virtual funds (50,000 mUSD), execution cost model, and fee structure. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicated readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long and contains many details (e.g., specific fee models, execution policy, calibration notes) that may be excessive for tool selection. While the first sentence effectively states the purpose, the subsequent dense text could be streamlined. It is adequately structured but not optimally concise.

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, annotations, and 4 parameters, the description covers key usage context: read-only nature, paper trading, coinId resolution, and the need to quote before ordering. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling quote tools but otherwise provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds crucial value by clarifying that coinId is a UCID (not a ticker) and directing to resolve_symbol. It also rephrases side and quantity, but schema already covers those. The agentTrace parameter is not elaborated beyond schema, but the overall additional guidance earns a 4.

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 'Read-only spot MARKET quote' and specifies it provides live execution price, estimated cost, available balance, and fill eligibility. It distinguishes itself from 'place_spot_order' by advising to quote before ordering. The tool name and sibling set include other quote types (futures_quote, pm_quote), but the description sufficiently identifies it as spot-focused.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before placing an order ('quote before place_spot_order instead of buying/selling blind'). It also clarifies that coinId is a UCID requiring resolution via resolve_symbol first, and notes it is for paper trading only. However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this over futures_quote or pm_quote, leaving some ambiguity.

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