list_futures_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('Get quotes'), with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutative, rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what 'quotes' entail (e.g., price data). This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get quotes for a futures contract in a given time range.' It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, return values, and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an AI agent to reliably invoke this tool without guesswork.

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%, with 14 parameters (1 required). The description mentions 'time range' and 'futures contract', which loosely maps to parameters like 'timestamp' and 'ticker', but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema titles (e.g., no format for dates, no explanation of 'params' object, no guidance on using 'limit' or 'sort'). It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get quotes') and resource ('for a futures contract'), specifying the scope ('in a given time range'). It distinguishes from general 'list_quotes' by specifying 'futures', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other futures-related siblings like 'list_futures_trades' or 'list_futures_aggregates'.

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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'in a given time range', which hints at when to use it (for time-based queries). However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use advice, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., vs. 'list_futures_trades' for trade data).

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