getRfqsRealtime

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It covers sorting, parameter interactions, rate limits, and increased latency during volatility. However, it does not specify that it is a read-only operation or the authentication required, but the context implies safety.

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 well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, provides details on behavior and constraints, and ends with a useful agent hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 output schema, the description covers the return behavior (non-final RFQs, sorted by createdAt descending) and mentions rate limits and latency. It does not describe the structure of returned RFQs, but for a real-time query tool, this is acceptable. A minor gap exists in not specifying the return format.

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 description must compensate. It explains precedence between rfqId and rfqLinkId, and that rfqLinkId is invalid when traderType is 'quote'. However, it does not define what rfqId or rfqLinkId represent, leaving the agent to infer from naming. This adds some value but is insufficient for full compensation.

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 clearly states 'Query RFQs in real-time from the RFQ engine' and specifies it returns 'all non-final RFQs sorted in descending order by createdAt'. This provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from historical RFQ queries via the agent hint.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this for real-time RFQ data. For historical data, use Get RFQs (rfq-list) instead.' It also clarifies parameter precedence and invalid combinations (rfqLinkId ignored when traderType is 'quote'), and mentions rate limits and latency conditions.

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