Sonar quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that quotes are 'short-lived' and lists the expected return fields (expected output, minimum output, fees, price impact, expiry), providing valuable context about the transient nature and response contents beyond what annotations offer.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently captures purpose, transient behavior, and expected returns. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With 4 parameters, strong annotations, and a 100% schema coverage, the description offers sufficient context by listing the key return values and the short-lived nature of quotes. While no output schema exists, the description adequately conveys what to expect without being overly verbose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, thus meeting the baseline without exceeding it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Request' and the resource 'short-lived Sonar quote for a Strata market', making the tool's function unmistakable. It also enumerates the return values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like strata_capabilities and strata_markets.

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 context is clear: this tool is for obtaining a quote before engaging with a Strata market. The sibling tools are sufficiently different that the intended use is transparent, though no explicit alternative or exclusion is mentioned.

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