getQuotes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses pagination, sort order by createdAt descending, a 50 requests-per-second rate limit, identifier priority, and a quoteLinkId/traderType constraint. However, there is an internal contradiction: 'Priority when multiple identifiers are provided: quoteId > quoteLinkId > rfqId' conflicts with 'When both quoteId and quoteLinkId are provided, both conditions apply.' This ambiguity slightly reduces transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination, and is reasonably organized. However, it is repetitive: the real-time/historical distinction appears twice and cursor pagination is also mentioned twice. The agent hint largely duplicates earlier sentences, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers key selection criteria, pagination, sorting, rate limiting, and an important parameter constraint. But with no output schema, it fails to describe the response shape, and it leaves cursor mechanics and filter-combination behavior ambiguous due to the priority/both-conditions contradiction. This is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in all cases.

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 the parameters. It does add meaningful context for quoteId, quoteLinkId, rfqId, traderType, and cursor, including priority and the quoteLinkId/traderType restriction. However, it does not explain limit behavior, cursor acquisition/usage mechanics, or the semantics of status values, leaving several parameters under-explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query historical quotes', and distinguishes itself from the real-time variant by name. The sibling list includes getQuotesRealtime, so an agent can clearly tell which tool serves historical vs live data.

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 states this data is not real-time and directs the agent to use the Get Quotes (real-time) endpoint for live data. It also provides an explicit agent hint repeating the same routing, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over the real-time sibling.

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