getRfqConfig

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 50 requests-per-second rate limit, the authenticated-account scope, and the pre-trade configuration role. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the rate limit is clearly separated, but the 'Tip' and 'Agent hint' paragraphs repeat nearly the same instruction about calling before creating RFQs. The phrase 'strategy types, and trading limits' also appears twice. The redundancy makes it less concise than it could be.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only configuration endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, lists the returned configuration elements, states the rate limit, and explains when to call it. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's mention of returned fields (deskCode, counterparties, strategy types, limits) is relevant but not required for parameter documentation.

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: 'Retrieve the RFQ configuration for the authenticated account,' and enumerates the returned content (counterparties, strategy types, maximum legs, minimum order quantities). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like createRfq, getRfqs, and createQuote, which are about creating or listing RFQs/quotes, not configuration.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call this endpoint before creating an RFQ' and 'Call this endpoint first to discover your deskCode... before creating RFQs or quotes.' It tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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