create_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the temporary nature (expires in 30 seconds) and supported types. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only (likely) or has side effects, nor any required permissions or auth details. Acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second adds critical context (expiry and supported type). No redundant information; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects (purpose, scope, expiry, customer association). However, it lacks information about the response format (e.g., rate, fees breakdown) or error handling, which are important for correct invocation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining expiry and scope but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get a quote for currency exchange' and specifies the resource (quote) and output (exchange rate, fees, amount). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_transfer and get_quote, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description provides context on expiry (30 seconds) and current scope (crypto to fiat off-ramp), guiding when to use. It implies alternatives like create_transfer (for execution) but does not explicitly state when not to use. Still, it offers useful contextual guidance.

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