get_quote

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does add real context: data age signals staleness and 'within the policy band' implies the returned depth is filtered by policy limits. However, it never states that the call is a read-only operation, what happens when the coin is not agent-allowed, or any rate/latency characteristics.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the returned fields and ends with the scoping constraint; nothing is redundant. As a sentence fragment it reads slightly terse, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return field semantics are already covered, and the tool takes only one parameter. What remains missing is the accepted coin identifier format and the failure mode for disallowed coins, which for a pre-trade pricing call an agent will likely hit.

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% for the single 'coin' parameter, so the description should clarify identifier format. 'Agent-allowed coin' usefully hints at a whitelist constraint on valid values, but it does not say whether a symbol, exchange-qualified pair, or internal ID is expected.

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 names concrete data fields (top of book, mid, data age, depth) so the agent knows exactly what is returned, and 'for an agent-allowed coin' scopes the resource. It stops short of an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from preview_order, which plausibly returns overlapping pricing data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to siblings such as preview_order or policy_limits. The agent must infer that this is a pre-trade read rather than a validation step.

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