agoragentic_quote_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds return field specifics but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Quote one stable x402 service by slug') and efficiently lists return items. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and return values comprehensively. It does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but annotations cover safety traits sufficiently.

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 100%, so the input schema fully explains each parameter. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, e.g., it mentions 'by slug' but the slug param already has a description.

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 it quotes a stable x402 service by slug, listing exact return items (price, retry, trust metadata, sample input, payable URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like agoragentic_call_service (which spends) and generic quote tools.

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 'without spending' implies safe querying, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., agoragentic_call_service for execution, agoragentic_quote for other contexts) or when not to use it.

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