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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction for client-side signing and that signing precedes submission via execute_swap. It also notes the API key requirement. It does not cover edge cases like no liquidity or fee structures, but for a quote tool the core behavior is well described.

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 two sentences, immediately states what the tool does, and provides the necessary workflow hints without any filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the full flow: quote generation, unsigned TX, client signing, and follow-up via execute_swap. It also covers the API key requirement. It does not detail return values, but that is expected for a simple quote 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning about formatting (e.g., base units) or default slippage, but those are already in the schema. The addition of 'Requires API key' is a prerequisite rather than a parameter semantic.

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 gets a price quote and unsigned transaction for a token swap on SunSwap DEX. It uses the specific verb 'Get' with a concrete resource and distinguishes itself from execute_swap by explicitly noting the next step is to sign and submit via that sibling tool.

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 provides clear context: use this to get a quote/unsigned TX, sign it client-side, then submit via execute_swap. It also mentions the API key requirement. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the workflow is unambiguous.

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