get_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a pure computation (a quote for a payment), which is useful but does not disclose anything about rate limits, freshness of the quote, or whether results expire.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is somewhat list-heavy, but every clause maps to an actual computed output, so nothing is wasted.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still enumerates the quote components, which helps an agent understand the response shape. The main gap is the missing relationship to build_payment/get_rates, but the core of what an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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%: amount, buffer, protocol (with enum semantics), and collateral are all documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and precisely enumerates what is computed: collateral requirements, developer fee, yield deposit, and recovery days, scoped to a zero-net-cost USDC payment on Base. That output list makes it distinguishable from get_rates/build_payment in substance, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: the description never states that this is a pre-payment quote to run before build_payment, nor does it contrast with get_rates. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'for a zero-net-cost USDC payment,' which is context, not instruction.

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