quote_multiply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that this is a projected quote for an unopened position and lists the returned metrics, strongly implying a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but the core behavioral context is clear.

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 compact sentence with a colon-separated list of outputs; it is front-loaded with the key context and contains no filler. Starting with a verb like 'Returns' would improve clarity, but as written it is concise and scannable.

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?

The listed output fields partially compensate for the absence of an output schema, and the required parameters are all present in the input schema. However, the description does not clarify how quote_multiply differs from quote_borrow or what valid market values are, leaving the context minimally sufficient rather than fully complete.

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 description adds no input parameter meaning beyond the schema. Market remains an opaque string, and the description does not explain how equityUsd and leverage relate to the resulting exposure, debt, or liquidation price. Since schema coverage is only 67%, the description should have compensated, but it does not.

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 names the resource ('a leveraged position before it is opened') and enumerates the computed fields (exposure, debt, LTV, health factor, liquidation price), so an agent can infer this is a pre-trade quote tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'quotes' or 'calculates' and does not explicitly contrast with quote_borrow, but the resource and output list are specific enough.

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 phrase 'before it is opened' provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when assessing a leveraged position before actually opening it. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5, but the timing and purpose are reasonably explicit.

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