Milli.gold trade cost quote

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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behaviour, but the description adds material context: the fee is the larger of `min` and `percent` (today 1 mg or 0.5 %), new-user waivers and wallet withdrawal fees are not applied, and the price moves. That is substantive disclosure beyond the structured 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before invocation details and caveats. Every sentence carries unique information: what it returns, how to invoke it, how the fee works, and what is excluded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the relevant outputs (`pay_toman` for a buy, `receive_toman` for a sale) and qualifies the result as an estimate subject to waivers and price movement. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds the either/or relationship between `grams` and `toman` and clarifies that `toman` is a fee-inclusive buy budget. The gain over the schema is modest, since the schema already describes each parameter and marks `toman` as buy-only.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate what a gold trade on Milli.gold costs or pays out right now, fee included, at the live price.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mg_fees, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 states the conditional parameter usage directly ('Give `grams` for a buy or a sale, or `toman` ... for a buy') and names the alternative for a related need ('For the fee table itself use mg_fees'). The condition that selects between the tool and its sibling is explicit.

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