QueryResult

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds useful operational transparency beyond annotations by disclosing authentication requirements, the exact ACL permission needed, and a precise global rate limit. This is the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent avoid permission and throttling failures.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by three concise bullet points covering auth, permission, and rate limits. It wastes very few words, though the 'OpenAPI interface' line adds limited value since the schema already implies an API shape.

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 two-required-parameter tool with no output schema, no parameter enums, and a huge sibling tool set. The description covers authentication and rate limiting well but omits accountType semantics, any explanation of what the returned 'results' look like, and any guidance on distinguishing this tool from similar query tools. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does clarify that quoteTxId is a 'quote transaction ID', but it says nothing about accountType, which is a required parameter. There is no mention of accepted values, formats, or how the two parameters relate, leaving the agent to guess a critical required input.

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 specific action ('Query') applied to a specific resource ('cryptocurrency exchange results') and identifies the key lookup mechanism ('using a quote transaction ID'). This goes well beyond the generic tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from many similar sibling query tools, and 'exchange results' is somewhat ambiguous without deeper domain context.

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 provides important prerequisites: OpenAPI interface, API Key authentication, ACL permission, and rate limit. This tells an agent the conditions under which the tool may be called, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as queryTrade, getTradeHistory, or getQuotes. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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