broker_quote_sell

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: this is a proforma quote, not an execution, and it must be followed by broker_confirm_quote. It also marks the tool [PRIVATE], which is useful. It does not detail auth requirements or quote validity, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and uses clear steps. Every sentence provides useful information: what it does, how to find pocket IDs, and the required next step. The [PRIVATE] tag is extra useful context. It is slightly dense but not bloated.

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 definition is complete enough for a first-step quote tool. It names the prerequisite (wallet_get_pockets), the required follow-up (broker_confirm_quote), and the key parameter semantics. With no output schema, it could describe the quote response, but that is likely covered by the confirm tool and not essential to invoke the sell quote step.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds directional semantics: origin is cryptocurrency, destination is fiat, and amount is in the origin cryptocurrency. This aligns with the parameter descriptions and enhances understanding. It could mention that the quote result is needed for confirmation, but the workflow hint covers that.

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 clear verb and resource: sell cryptocurrency to receive fiat balance in a pocket, creating a proforma quote. It distinguishes this from siblings by specifying the sell direction and the two-step flow. It could be more explicit about being a quote-only operation, but 'proforma quote' conveys that.

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 gives concrete workflow guidance: use wallet_get_pockets to find pocket IDs, and REQUIRES subsequent confirmation with broker_confirm_quote. This tells an agent when to use the tool and what must happen next. It does not explicitly contrast with broker_quote_buy/swap, but the sell direction is clear from the name and description.

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