quant_list_methods

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructive=false, idempotent. The description adds details on return fields (key, name, paper citation, etc.) and behavior differences between markdown and JSON formats. No contradictions.

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 short (6 lines), with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. 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 an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently explains the return values and references sibling tools. The parameter is well-documented. Slightly deduct for not mentioning pagination or limits, but overall complete for a listing 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?

The description reiterates the only parameter (response_format) with its enum values and explains how the return format differs between 'markdown' and 'json'. Since the schema description coverage is reported as 0% (though the schema actually includes a description for response_format), the description adds value by linking format choice to output style.

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 lists 'every registered paper-backed trading method', specifying the exact resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it provides method_key values for quant_analyze_setup and quant_describe_method.

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 tells the agent to use this tool to discover valid method_key values for other tools, providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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