getRfqsRealtime

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: only non-final RFQs are returned, results are sorted descending by createdAt, rfqId takes precedence over rfqLinkId, rfqLinkId is invalid for traderType quote, there is a 50 rps rate limit, and latency may increase during extreme volatility. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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 content is well-organized and front-loaded, but it is somewhat repetitive: 'Returns all non-final RFQs sorted in descending order by createdAt' is restated later as 'Results are sorted by createdAt descending,' and the rfqLinkId/traderType constraint appears both in the main body and the agent hint. This 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers the most important call-level details: what is returned, sort order, parameter precedence, invalid parameter combinations, rate limit, and latency risks. It does not describe the exact response shape or pagination, but for a simple read-only query with all optional parameters, the provided information is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the relationship between rfqId and rfqLinkId and the invalid combination with traderType quote, which is non-obvious and valuable. It does not fully define each parameter's meaning, but the parameter names are self-descriptive and the enum values are listed in the schema.

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 RFQs in real-time from the RFQ engine.' It clearly states the return scope ('all non-final RFQs') and the sort order, and it explicitly separates itself from the historical getRfqs tool via the agent hint. This is more than sufficient to distinguish the tool from siblings like getRfqs or getQuotesRealtime.

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 agent hint gives explicit selection guidance: 'Use this for real-time RFQ data. For historical data, use Get RFQs (rfq-list) instead.' It also covers important invocation-time constraints such as rfqId precedence and rfqLinkId invalidity when traderType is quote, so an agent knows when and how to use the tool correctly.

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