pillar_direct_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no signing is needed and describes the quote's contents (leverage, LTV, swap details), but it omits behavior material to a quote tool, such as how long the quote is valid, whether it is a simulation only, or any rate/freshness constraints.

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 core purpose and the pre-boost sequencing are front-loaded in two compact sentences. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is relevant but peripheral, adding a small amount of non-essential text to an otherwise tight definition.

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 one-parameter quote tool with no output schema, the description explains what the quote exposes and how to use its outputs downstream in pillar_direct_boost, which is most of what an agent needs. The main gap is quote validity/lifetime, which is not addressed.

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 100% and the single sbtcAmount parameter is already documented as 'sBTC amount in sats to boost' with an exclusive minimum. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, such as units beyond sats or acceptable ranges, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a boost quote') and enumerates what the quote contains: projected leverage, LTV, and swap details. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mutation tool pillar_direct_boost by noting 'No signing needed,' so an agent can tell it is the read/preview step rather than the execution step.

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?

It gives a clear sequencing rule: use this to determine aeUsdcToBorrow and minSbtcFromSwap before calling pillar_direct_boost, which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not say when not to use it (for example, whether a quote can be reused or when it goes stale), so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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