quantra_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: the response is the engine body passed through unchanged ("verbatim from GET /meta"). Beyond that it says nothing about idempotency, auth needs, or rate limits, which for a zero-arg read call is a moderate but not severe gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and immediately followed by the action-oriented 'call this first' guidance. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return values, and it still flags the key ``response`` field. For a zero-parameter metadata call, the description plus schema and output schema are sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty argument object matches the description's silence on inputs.

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?

States a specific resource (engine metadata) and its provenance (verbatim from GET /meta), which is clear. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like quantra_health, list_endpoints, and engine_schema, though the boundary between 'metadata' and those tools is not spelled out.

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?

"Call this first" gives explicit situational guidance and the description lists what the call yields (API version, QuantLib version, product list, endpoint list). No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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