getRfqConfig

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals rate limit (50 req/s) and that the operation is read-only. It does not detail authentication needs beyond 'authenticated account' or error handling, but it sufficiently discloses safety profile.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The tip and agent hint add value but are slightly redundant. Could be trimmed, but overall effective.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage timing, and rate limit. It does not describe output format, but that is mitigated by the clarity of purpose.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-param tools.

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 explicitly states it retrieves the RFQ configuration for the authenticated account and lists included items (counterparties, strategy types, maximum legs, minimum order quantities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getRfqs or createRfq.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this endpoint before creating an RFQ' and includes a tip and agent hint reinforcing when to use. It also tells the agent to call it first to discover necessary data.

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