quote_trade

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that no trade is placed, that a quote has an expiration, and exactly what the response includes: quote_id, vencimiento, depth estimate, and max_debit_usd including commission reserve. It does not mention any reservation or holding behavior, but the added output and non-execution details are valuable.

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 compact, dense, and front-loaded with the most important fact: 'Cotiza sin operar.' Each sentence adds distinct information and there is no filler.

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 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and major parameter behaviors, but omits the meaning of slug and outcome. It is not fully complete for an agent to invoke this tool confidently without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain side-dependent amount semantics and limit_price, but it leaves slug and outcome undefined. Since those are required and not documented in the schema, the description only partially compensates.

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 opening phrase 'Cotiza sin operar' states a specific verb (quote) and resource (trade) and explicitly distinguishes this tool from executing a trade. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling execute_trade and makes the core purpose obvious.

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 description provides clear context: this tool quotes without executing, and it specifies how amounts should be interpreted for BUY vs SELL and how limit_price behaves. It does not explicitly name 'use this before execute_trade' or list exclusions, but the 'sin operar' distinction is a clear functional boundary.

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