ai_quote_buyQuote how much $AI a given amount of HYPE buys right now, before slippage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hype | Yes | HYPE amount as a decimal string, e.g. "1.5" (max 10000) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokensOut | Yes | ||
| disclosure | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "disclosure": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tokensOut": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tokensOut",
+ "disclosure"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the quote is current ('right now') and excludes slippage, which is not captured by the annotations. This helps an agent treat the result as preliminary rather than final.
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 that states the essential operation and qualifiers without redundancy. Every phrase contributes to the meaning, 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?
For a one-parameter, read-only quote tool with an output schema, the description plus schema and annotations fully equip an agent to invoke it. It explains the input semantics, the operation, and the caveat about slippage.
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% for the single parameter 'hype', including a description, example, and max value. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond referring to 'a given amount of HYPE,' so baseline 3 applies.
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 specific action ('Quote') on a specific resource (how much $AI a given amount of HYPE buys), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling ai_quote_sell and transaction-building tools. The phrase 'right now, before slippage' further narrows the purpose to an instantaneous indicative quote.
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 implies this tool is for buy-side quotes ('buys') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like ai_quote_sell or ai_build_buy_tx. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.