Unsigned transaction group for a get_quote quote_id. Sign every txn with your own wallet and submit as one group. NEVER pass mnemonics or private keys to any tool — signing happens in YOUR wallet, never here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| quote_id | Yes | ||
| user_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: the transactions are unsigned, signing occurs only in the user's wallet, and the tool never handles mnemonics or private keys. It also implies that the tool does not submit transactions, leaving that to the user. This is exemplary transparency for a transaction-building 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The security warning is essential and adds real value without 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, the description covers the essential workflow (build unsigned group, sign, submit) and security requirements. It leverages the existence of an output schema, so details about return values are not needed. It could be more thorough about the exact role of user_address or prerequisites, but it remains sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains quote_id ('for a get_quote quote_id') and indirectly hints at user_address through 'your wallet,' but api_key is completely unexplained. This leaves two of three parameters semantically underexplained.
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 that the tool produces an unsigned transaction group for a get_quote quote_id, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote or pay_x402_invoice. However, it lacks an explicit active verb (e.g., 'Builds...') and does not name the resource as 'swap' directly, relying on the tool name for that association.
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 usage context by requiring a quote_id from get_quote and instructing the user to sign every transaction with their own wallet and submit as one group. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient given the tool's unique role among siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: quoting vs building swaps, managing watches, handling payments, registration steps, and LP valuation. Even related tools like get_credit_offer and pay_x402_invoice are clearly separated as 'create offer' vs 'pay invoice'. No two tools appear to duplicate functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using verbs like get, list, build, set, delete, pay, register, verify, value. Read operations are consistently divided into get_ (single item) and list_ (collections), and the rest are action-oriented. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 12 tools, the server covers its main domains—swap quoting/building, payment, credit management, watch management, agent registration, and LP valuation—without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place, and the count fits comfortably within the typical 3-15 tool range for a well-scoped server.
The tool set covers core workflows end-to-end: quote to swap, credit top-up to payment, watch registration to listing/deletion, and two-step agent registration. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated get_watch (though list_watches covers it) and no way to inspect past transactions or offers, but agents can work around these without major friction.