broker_quote_buy

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-write and idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the operation only creates a proforma quote and must be followed by broker_confirm_quote. The [PRIVATE] tag also flags restricted scope. No annotation contradiction is present.

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?

Two short sentences plus the [PRIVATE] tag deliver the purpose, prerequisite, process step, and required next action without waste. Critical information is front-loaded: the verb, the resource, the proforma nature, and the mandatory confirmation step.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description conveys that the result is a proforma quote and that confirmation is mandatory, which gives an agent enough to orchestrate the two-step flow. It does not spell out the exact return fields or quote expiry, but those are minor gaps given the clear sequence and the fully documented input schema.

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 the baseline is a 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that origin_pocket_id holds fiat currency and destination_pocket_id receives cryptocurrency, and by directing the agent to wallet_get_pockets for finding these IDs. This helps map parameters to real-world roles beyond the schema text.

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 uses a specific verb ('Buy') with a clear resource ('cryptocurrency using fiat balance from a pocket') and then clarifies that it creates a proforma quote, not a final purchase. This distinguishes it from siblings like broker_quote_sell, broker_quote_swap, and broker_confirm_quote. No ambiguity remains about what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly staps the process: STEP 1, use wallet_get_pockets to find pocket IDs, and REQUIRES subsequent confirmation with broker_confirm_quote. It does not mention alternatives for sell/swap scenarios, but the buy-specific language and the named confirmation step give clear context for when this tool is the right choice.

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