Best Deal For An Amount

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

Adds substantial context beyond the read-only annotations: order books are walked level by level, `filled_pct < 100` signals thin visible liquidity, brokers fill at their own price, `source: listed_price` is a single indicative price ranked last, and results are snapshots rather than quotes. It also warns that trading and withdrawal fees are excluded.

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 purpose and example questions are front-loaded, followed by precise behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries useful operational meaning: slippage mechanics, broker behavior, listed-price ranking, fee exclusion, and snapshot warning.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the key return semantics (`receive` meaning for buy vs sell), liquidity ranking caveats, and the crucial fee/snapshot limitations. This gives an agent enough context to invoke and interpret the tool responsibly.

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%, so the schema already documents `coin`, `side`, `quote`, and `amount` including examples and enums. The description reinforces `amount` semantics through examples and explains what `receive` means, but does not add materially new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 states a precise verb and resource: ranking exchanges by effective buy/sell outcome for a given size, including order-book slippage. It gives concrete example questions and distinguishes the result type (`receive`) for buys vs sells, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool computes.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use it via example questions and explicitly warns to check `ic_fees` before acting because fees are not deducted. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `ic_compare_price` or `ic_arbitrage`, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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