subscribeRfqQuotes

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish a non-mutating, externally-updated operation. The description adds the authentication requirement, which is explicitly the kind of operational context this dimension credits. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits lifecycle details such as how a subscription terminates or whether it streams repeatedly.

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 a single front-loaded phrase with no filler; it states the operation and a key prerequisite efficiently. It is concise, though it is so brief that it leaves substantive gaps that structure alone cannot repair.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a subscription-like semantic, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain the message/timeout behavior, whether this is a long-lived stream or a one-shot reply, how the subscription ends, or how it differs from sibling RFQ subscriptions. This is below the minimum viable level for correct invocation.

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%, and the description makes no mention of timeoutMs or messageCount. An agent cannot tell whether messageCount is the total number of quotes to collect, a batch size, or a maximum bound, nor what timeoutMs controls. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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 identifies a specific action ('订阅'/subscribe) and resource ('RFQ 报价'/RFQ quotes), and notes that authentication is required. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings such as subscribeRfqRfqs or subscribeRfqTrades, so it misses the chance to fully disambiguate.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool instead of alternatives like getQuotesRealtime, subscribeRfqRfqs, or subscribeRfqTrades. The only contextual information is the authentication requirement, which does not help an agent choose among the many RFQ-related subscription and fetch tools.

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