Post Instances Transfer Quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether a quote locks a rate, how long it is valid, what fees or network constraints apply, or what the response contains — all of which matter for a write-scoped quote call.

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 three-word phrase is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded purpose statement, scope, or alternative routing to speak of. Nothing is wasted because nothing meaningful is present.

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?

This is a complex tool: a nested request body with ten fields including fee configuration, amount reference semantics, and a large network enum, plus an Idempotency-Key header and no output schema. A three-word description leaves the agent without any of the context needed to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33%, and several key fields (wallet_id, sender_token, customer_token, customer_network, customer_wallet_address, amount_reference with an empty description) have no explanatory text. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the nested requestBody semantics largely undocumented.

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?

"Create Transfer Quote" essentially restates the tool name and title without adding a distinguishing detail. It does not clarify how this quote differs from the many sibling quote endpoints (PostV1InstancesQuotes, PostV1InstancesQuotesFx, PostV1InstancesPayinQuotes, PostV1InstancesPayinQuotesFx), so an agent must guess from the URL alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (instance, wallet, customer wallet address), and no reference to alternative quote tools. The agent gets no signal about when a transfer quote is the right choice versus a payin quote or generic quote.

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