Print Live Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important context: 'Uses Pacifica's own simulator (undocumented web API, may change without notice)' warns about stability, and 'Free, no execution' clarifies no hidden costs or side effects. It also describes what the quote contains, adding behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then providing necessary context on Print mechanics, parameter semantics, and API caveats. It is moderately long but every sentence contributes to understanding. It is not bloated, though it could be condensed without losing essential information.

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 explaining return values isn't needed. The description covers the core concept, explains the key parameter behavior (side, strike_price), and warns about API instability. Gaps remain for 'usd', 'game', and 'leverage' semantics, and explicit alternative tool usage, but for a read-only quote tool this is substantially 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly clarifies 'side' (buy/sell below/above market) and 'strike_price' (0 = auto 1% away from mark). However, 'usd', 'game', and 'leverage' are not directly explained; 'premium per 24h cycle' hints at their role but leaves ambiguity. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 opens with 'Get a LIVE quote for a Pacifica Print order' and specifies the exact outputs (premium, implied volatility, liquidation price). It also explains the Print concept and clarifies 'Free, no execution', which distinguishes it from execution tools like print_order and evaluate_print.

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 explains when to use the quote mechanic implicitly by describing what a Print is and noting 'no execution', implying execution is a different tool. It also gives concrete guidance for side ('long = buy below market, short = sell above market') and strike_price ('0 = auto 1% away from mark'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct 'use this when' statement.

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