Quote

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining how mid is computed as the book midpoint when both sides exist, how allMids acts only as a labeled fallback, and that mid always stays within the bid/ask range. It also discloses coin validation against the perp universe and spot pair pass-through behavior, which is valuable for correct use.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds exactly the edge-case and validation details that matter. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations that indicate a safe, read-only operation, the description is complete: it covers what is returned, important mid/allMids behavior, validation rules, and an example. No critical calling information is missing.

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 input schema provides only a bare 'string' type for coin with no property description, so the description must compensate. It does by defining the valid asset space ('validated against the perp universe'), noting spot '@{index}/NAME' pass-through, and giving a concrete example 'quote(coin="BTC")'. This adds meaningful semantics, even though the full accepted symbol set is not enumerated.

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: it returns one coin's live quote from l2Book, including bid/ask/mid/spread and top-of-book sizes. This clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like market_overview or order_book by emphasizing the single-coin, top-of-book 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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a single coin's live l2Book quote is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'One coin's' framing provides clear context without confusing it with multi-coin or depth-focused tools.

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