request_fiat_quote

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens after requesting a quote.

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 and front-loaded with the action, but it includes a parameter list that adds redundancy with the schema. It could be more concise, but the parameter descriptions are necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Without annotations, output schema, or sibling differentiation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'fiat quote' entails, how amounts are interpreted, or any constraints. The tool is one of many similar quote tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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 includes brief parameter explanations (e.g., 'from_coin: Source coin/currency'), which add some value over the bare schema names. However, the explanations are minimal and lack format details or constraints, so they only partially compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Request a fiat conversion quote' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'request_convert_quote' (crypto) and 'confirm_fiat_quote' (confirmation). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'request_convert_quote' or 'confirm_fiat_quote'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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