create_swapUse this to swap any token on any chain into USDC on Base via Relay. Returns a headless deposit address (no signing) or an on-chain intent. App fees accrue on swaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| toChain | No | ||
| fromChain | Yes | ||
| fromToken | Yes | ||
| recipient | Yes | ||
| humanPresent | No |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, but create_swap and create_onramp_session both result in acquiring USDC on Base, and get_route_quote covers both fiat and crypto routes; minor potential for confusion.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_swap, create_onramp_session, etc.), making the set predictable.
With 5 tools covering quoting, swapping, status checks, fiat onramp, and wallet creation, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The set covers quoting, swapping, fiat onramp, and wallet provisioning, but lacks offramp execution (crypto to fiat), cancellation, or token/chain discovery, leaving notable gaps.