getRfqs

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

With no annotations, the description comprehensively discloses behavior: cursor-based pagination, sorted by createdAt descending, parameter interaction rules, time restriction on rfqLinkId, and rate limit. No destructive behavior implied.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, pagination/sorting, real-time caveat, parameter rules, rate limit, agent hint. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential usage aspects: filtering, pagination, sorting, parameter constraints, rate limit, and alternative tools. It is self-contained enough for an agent to use the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains optional filtering by ID, trader type, and status, and clarifies parameter interactions (rfqId vs rfqLinkId, rfqLinkId time restriction). However, it does not explicitly mention the limit range or cursor usage details, though pagination is noted.

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?

Clearly states 'Query historical RFQs' with optional filtering. Distinguishes from sibling tool getRfqsRealtime by explicitly noting this is for historical data, not real-time.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'This data is not real-time. Use the Get RFQs (real-time) endpoint for live data.' Also explains pagination and constraints on rfqLinkId, helping the agent choose the correct tool.

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