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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '（只读）' merely restates that. The one piece of added context is that the call is free, which is useful for cost-sensitive planning, but it says nothing about quote validity, routing, price impact, or what the response contains.

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 dense sentence front-loads the category tag and read-only/cost markers before the parameter hints, with no padding. It is compact for the amount of information conveyed, though the mixed bracket notation is slightly noisy.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a quote returns (price, route, expected output amount, expiry). It provides none of that, leaving the agent to guess at the result shape, though the input side is fully covered by the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the slippage default of 1 and the empty-fromToken convention for native coins. The description repeats the same meanings (chain short names, address-or-symbol tokens, amount as smallest-unit string) without adding format examples or constraints beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource — '链上 DEX 报价' (on-chain DEX quote) — and tags it as read-only market data, which separates it from the many trading/strategy siblings. It does not name platform_dex_swap as the execution counterpart, so the boundary with the swap tool is left implicit.

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 '（只读）' and '（cost: free）' markers imply this is a safe pre-trade lookup, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before platform_dex_swap) or when to prefer platform_market_quote instead. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and annotation.

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