get_quote

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the important $0.001 USDC/query cost and supports comma-separated symbols, which is valuable. However, it omits payment prerequisites, rate limits, and failure behavior, leaving a partial picture.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes practical examples and the key cost constraint. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so return-value details are covered. The description covers purpose, input format, and the major side effect (cost). It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and payment prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a straightforward quote 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 input schema only defines 'symbol' as a string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that multiple comma-separated symbols are supported and gives 'BTC' and 'BTC,ETH,SOL' as examples. This meaningfully clarifies the parameter beyond the schema, though it does not address case sensitivity or edge cases.

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 action ('Get current price quote') and the resource ('crypto symbols'), with concrete examples of valid inputs. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like rh_crypto_quote or algorand_get_quote, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage when a current crypto price is needed and gives input formatting guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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