Create Rfq

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a live-money action tied to the authenticated Retail account. It does not explain the RFQ lifecycle, what is actually created, or what happens to existing state, so it stays at an adequate level rather than rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with the highest-severity warning front-loaded in capitals. No filler or repetition, though the second sentence partially restates the danger already implied by the first.

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 and complex nested parameters, the definition is not fully complete. It covers the critical real-funds warning and account scope, but omits parameter meaning and any indication of the RFQ response or subsequent quoting flow. This is a meaningful gap, though not fatal for a destructive action where safety warning and authentication context are the key facts.

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 single body parameter is a nested object with a oneOf constraint (qtyDecimal vs cashOrderQty) plus symbol and restRemainder. The description says nothing about any of these fields, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap in the schema. An agent gets no help understanding quantities, symbol format, or what restRemainder means.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Creates a combo RFQ") and scopes it to the authenticated Retail account, which an agent can act on. It stops short of distinguishing this from the sibling create_combo or create_quote, so the boundary between those operations is not made explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_combo, create_quote, or preview_order, and no prerequisites beyond the account mention. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from sibling names.

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