onramperx

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the tool checks both swap status and fee collection, confirming its read-only nature and the specific aspects checked.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's action and parameters, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the return values or status fields, leaving the agent without clear expectations of what the response contains.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only mentions 'by requestId' without adding any details about the parameter's format, constraints, or role, providing minimal added meaning over 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 clearly states the verb 'check' and the resources 'swap status' and 'fee collection', and specifies the identifier 'requestId', which uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_swap or get_route_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 usage for checking status and fees after a swap, but does not specify when not to use it (e.g., for creating swaps or quotes) or provide explicit alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the openWorldHint annotation: a human must physically tap the payment link, fiat legs cannot be programmatically triggered, and a human is notified. This is critical for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and usage, and the second adds critical behavioral transparency. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the simple schema (3 params, no output schema) and annotations, the description covers the main behavioral and usage aspects. Lacks details on response format or error handling, but is sufficient for basic invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only provides high-level context (US-only hints at geo='US'). It doesn't specify allowed values or formats for amountUsd or destinationAddress, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 specifies the action (create a session to buy USDC on Base), the target users (US users), and accepted payment methods (card/Apple Pay/Google Pay). It distinguishes from siblings like create_swap, which likely handles crypto-to-crypto swaps.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when a US user wants to buy USDC on Base...' and includes constraints (US-only, <= $500/week). It implicitly guides away from non-US or higher amounts but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true. The description adds behavioral context: it explains the return types ('headless deposit address' or 'on-chain intent') and mentions that app fees accrue. While it does not detail all side effects (e.g., irreversible on-chain actions), it provides useful information beyond the sparse annotations.

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 concise at three sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second describes outputs, and the third mentions fees. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, open world), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, prerequisites, error conditions, and when to use this tool versus siblings like get_route_quote. The return types are mentioned but not explained (e.g., 'headless deposit address'). Significant gaps remain.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only indirectly explains some parameters (e.g., fromToken, fromChain, amount, recipient) but omits details on format, units, or constraints. Parameters like toChain and humanPresent are not addressed at all. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

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's purpose: 'swap any token on any chain into USDC on Base via Relay.' It specifies the action (swap), the resource (tokens/chains), and the target (USDC on Base), distinguishing it from siblings like check_swap (status check) and get_route_quote (quoting).

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 when to use the tool (for executing swaps), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_route_quote for quotes, check_swap for status), but no guidance is given on choosing between them. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by listing returned information: fees, ETA, KYC burden, limits, reasoning. It also notes the tool is 'non-custodial', which is important for trust. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance and output summary. Every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 7 parameters (3 required, nested objects, enums) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on parameter formats, expected shapes for source/destination objects, or how speed/kycTolerance affect results. Leaves some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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. However, it does not explain any individual parameters (geo, speed, source, etc.) beyond the tool's purpose. The output mentions KYC burden but doesn't tie it to the kycTolerance parameter. Significant gap leaves agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 returns ranked value-routing quotes for moving value between fiat and crypto or crypto to crypto, distinguishing it from siblings like create_swap (execution) and check_swap (status). It uses specific verbs 'get' and 'returns' with explicit output fields.

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 starts with 'Use this when a human or agent wants the best non-custodial way to move value', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling names imply execution tools exist. Could be improved with exclusionary notes.

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

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

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description adds behavioral details: gasless, non-custodial, TEE keys, user-exportable. This provides valuable context about how the wallet works (e.g., key security, exportability) without contradicting annotations.

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 conveys all key attributes concisely, with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the purpose and key behavioral traits, but fails to explain the 'owner' parameter or the output format. Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the omission is notable but not severely incomplete.

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 sole parameter 'owner' is not explained in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what 'owner' represents or how it should be provided, leaving a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 creates a gasless, non-custodial CDP Embedded Wallet address on Base. It specifies the purpose ('to receive routed value') and uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('wallet address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with swaps and onramp sessions.

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 when a Base wallet is needed for receiving routed value, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. Since sibling tools are different, confusion is minimal, but explicit guidance is absent.

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