quote_by_ids

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

The description essentially restates the tool's name with no behavioral details. It discloses nothing about side effects, network calls, return format, error cases, or required permissions. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails entirely.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information and provides no structural guidance, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'quote' means, what the parameters do, what the return value is, or how the tool fits into the broader system.

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?

Only the 'ids' parameter is vaguely described as 'numeric ids'. The remaining five parameters (chain, format, rpcUrl, decimals, contractAddress) are not explained at all, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.

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 the specific verb 'quote' and identifies the resource as 'metrics', with the qualifier 'by numeric ids'. This distinguishes it from siblings like quote_metrics, though it doesn't clarify what 'quote' returns.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like quote_metrics or quote_metrics_at_block. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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