rh_crypto_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost per query ($0.001 USDG), the auth requirement, and the alternative free tier. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but the output schema covers return structure. This is above-average transparency for a tool with no 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 compact: two sentences cover purpose, supported assets, cost, auth, and free tier. The most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (1 required param, no enums, output schema provided), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, cost, auth modes, and parameter hints. Minor gaps like error handling and exact symbol casing are not critical given the output schema and sibling context. It feels complete for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the symbol parameter by listing supported crypto tickers ('BTC, ETH, SOL'), and clarifies session_token's role by specifying to leave it empty for free tier. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types, though exact symbol formats (e.g., case sensitivity) are not detailed.

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's function: 'Get crypto price quote settled on Robinhood Chain.' It specifies the asset class (crypto) and the specific blockchain (Robinhood Chain), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rh_get_stock (stocks) and algorand_get_quote (Algorand). The supported symbols (BTC, ETH, SOL) further clarify the resource scope.

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: it requires a valid x402 session (USDG) for paid mode, and explains the free tier by leaving session_token empty. This gives clear conditions for invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-Robinhood chains, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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