Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the data sources (allMids + l2Book), the coin-validation rule against the perp universe, and the notable spot-pair pass-through behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core function and outputs, the validation behavior, and a concrete call example. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter) with an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, so those burdens are lifted. The description covers behavior, data source, coin validation, and an example. Minor gaps: domain terms like allMids and l2Book are unexplained, but this is not critical for such a scoped tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter documentation burden. It compensates well by explaining the coin validation against the perp universe, the spot pair format, and providing an explicit example (quote(coin="BTC")). It could be more explicit about accepted formats and case sensitivity, but for a single-param tool this is strong compensation.

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 function: retrieving a single coin's live quote from allMids and l2Book, returning bid/ask/mid/spread and top-of-book sizes. It names the resource (one coin), the verb (get live quote), and the output fields, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like candles (historical), trades (executed trades), and order_book (full depth).

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 usage context is implied — an agent needing a live quote for one coin would naturally select this tool. The validation note adds when it can be used (coins in the perp universe, spot pairs in '@{index}/NAME' format). However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named; the distinction from order_book or market_overview is left to inference.

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