createQuote

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

With no annotations, the description adds rate limit (50 req/s) and the constraint about not quoting own RFQ. It does not disclose the result of a successful quote (e.g., does it create a pending quote, require confirmation?) or potential side effects, so transparency is partial.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. Bullet points clarify the lists, and the agent hint is efficient. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input constraints and behavioral rules well. It lacks an explanation of what happens after quote submission (e.g., returns quote ID, requires confirmation) but is otherwise adequate for an input-focused tool.

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?

The description adds meaning for quoteBuyList and quoteSellList (maker execution direction) beyond the schema, though other parameters like quoteLinkId, anonymous, and expireIn are not explained. With schema coverage at 0%, more parameter documentation would be beneficial.

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 the tool submits a quote for an existing RFQ, specifies the required at least one of quoteBuyList or quoteSellList, and differentiates from siblings like createRfq (creates RFQ) and cancelQuote (cancels quote).

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 says to use this to respond to an RFQ with pricing and provides constraints (cannot quote own RFQ, ensure collateral for spot). However, it does not contrast with siblings like acceptNonLpQuote or applyQuote, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool.

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