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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic resource, such as how query or networks affect results, whether output is aggregated or per-network, or any rate-limit/auth considerations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It wastes no words and directly states the tool's core purpose.

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?

With no output schema and underdocumented parameters, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It lacks return-format expectations, parameter semantics, and guidance on how this tool fits into a cross-chain swap workflow relative to getRelaySwapQuote.

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 compensate for the undocumented 'query' and 'networks' parameters. It does not: 'query' is ambiguous, and 'networks' is not explained beyond its name. The overall purpose gives minimal context but not enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('Relay-supported currencies'), and the purpose ('for cross-chain swaps'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getRelaySwapQuote and getRelayTransactionStatus, which serve different functions.

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 'for cross-chain swaps' provides clear context that this tool is used when working with Relay cross-chain swap flows, likely to discover available currencies before quoting. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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