get_route_quoteUse this when a human or agent wants the best non-custodial way to move value between fiat and crypto (or crypto to crypto). Returns ranked rails with fees, ETA, KYC burden, limits, and reasoning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo | No | ||
| speed | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| amountUsd | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| humanPresent | No | ||
| kycTolerance | No |
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.
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.