Live venue quote comparison for a token conversion (CoW + ParaSwap on Base). Free, no auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | No | 8453 (Base) | |
| buy_token | Yes | ERC-20 address being bought | |
| sell_token | Yes | ERC-20 address being sold | |
| sell_amount | Yes | sell amount in base units, decimal string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds that the tool is free and requires no auth, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it executes trades, or how it interacts with external venues. It also doesn't describe return data or error handling, leaving gaps.
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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core function and then adds the free/no-auth qualifier. Every word earns its place; no wasted or redundant content.
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, the description should explain what the user receives (e.g., a list of quotes with prices, expiry, etc.), but it only says 'quote comparison.' It also doesn't explain how quotes relate to order placement, which is available in sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for a simple tool.
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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context that the quoting is from CoW + ParaSwap on Base, but does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?
The description clearly states the tool performs live venue quote comparison for token conversion, naming specific protocols (CoW + ParaSwap) and network (Base). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle orders, intents, and account management.
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 usage for token conversion quoting but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, making guidance only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.