quote_metrics_at_epoch_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavior disclosure. It only states the action and default, without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, error conditions, required authentication, or output structure. This is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, and the key qualifier 'current by default' is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it forfeits details that could be included without much bloat.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, return format, meaning of 'quote', or how epoch boundaries are determined, leaving a significant information gap 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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain any of them (e.g., names, chain, format, epochId). The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap, providing no meaning beyond the 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 'Quote metrics at the end of an epoch' clearly identifies the action (quote) and the resource (metrics) with a specific temporal scope (epoch). It also notes 'current by default', clarifying the default behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like quote_metrics_at_block or quote_metrics_at_timestamp, though the epoch reference implies this distinction.

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 description implies usage for when an epoch-end quote is needed, and 'current by default' indicates the default context. No explicit guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over others, nor any exclusions or alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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