request_convert_quote

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., temporary quote creation), required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves the agent with no information about the tool's behavior beyond its basic action.

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 concise with one sentence and an Args list. However, the Args list largely duplicates the schema without additional value, making it somewhat redundant. It could be more efficient by focusing on non-obvious details.

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?

For a tool with 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks information on return values, error states, or usage context. It fails to provide a complete picture for the agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to parameters like 'account_type' (listing allowed values: UNIFIED or eb_convert_funding) and explains 'request_coin' and 'request_amount' roles. However, it does not provide further details on valid formats or defaults.

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 requests a quote for crypto-to-crypto conversion, distinguishing it from fiat or other quote tools. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like request_fiat_quote explicitly, though the crypto focus is evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameters without context for selection criteria or prerequisites.

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