broker_quote_buy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It explains that it creates a proforma quote (not final) and requires confirmation. However, it does not disclose side effects like fund reservation, rate locking, or potential costs. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 two sentences plus a note, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. The 'STEP 1:' and '[PRIVATE]' are slightly extraneous but do not significantly detract from clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of a two-step process and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (wallet_get_pockets) and the need for confirmation. However, it lacks information on what the proforma quote contains (e.g., rates, fees, expiration), which would help agents understand the output.

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 each parameter already has descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is for buying cryptocurrency with fiat and creating a proforma quote. It distinguishes from siblings like broker_quote_sell (sell) and broker_quote_swap (swap) by specifying 'Buy'. However, the 'STEP 1:' prefix and '[PRIVATE]' label add minor noise.

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?

Explicitly states that this is STEP 1 and requires subsequent confirmation with broker_confirm_quote. It also directs users to wallet_get_pockets for pocket IDs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the required follow-up is clear.

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