q402_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: discloses read-only nature, no API key needed, no funds move, unconditional full matrix return, inability to filter by trial scope, and the q402_pay TRIAL_BNB_ONLY behavior. This goes beyond the schema and annotations to give critical operational expectations.

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?

Though longer than a two-sentence description, every sentence adds essential information: purpose, chain list, return behavior, trial caveat, RLUSD note, safety, and usage placement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler, earning its length.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return value (full chain × token matrix), including RLUSD, and the trial-account implications. It also covers prerequisites (none), side effects (none), and integration with q402_pay, making the tool fully self-contained for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already rich with enums and special narrowing notes for RLUSD and USDG. The description adds context for trial-row interpretation but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool compares gas costs and supported tokens across the 12 chains Q402 relays, with the chain list enumerated. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning this as the quote-before-pay comparison tool, unlike q402_pay or q402_bridge_quote.

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?

Explicitly says to use this before q402_pay so the user can see what's available and pick a chain. It also explains the trial-vs-multichain scope limitation and directs the caller to treat rows outside BNB/Avalanche as informational when a Trial API Key is intended. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling quote-like tools, but provides clear when-to-use context.

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