Check whether a limit/DCA order for this pair and size would be executable: oracle support, liquidity, minimum size. Run this before signing an order. Amounts are RAW token units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenIn | Yes | ERC-20 address of the token being sold (0x-hex) | |
| amountIn | Yes | amount of tokenIn in RAW token units (decimal string, already scaled by the token's decimals) | |
| tokenOut | Yes | ERC-20 address of the token being bought (0x-hex) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that it checks oracle support/liquidity/minimum size and that amounts are raw units. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model beyond readOnlyHint. No return format is disclosed, but 'would be executable' implies a verdict.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then usage timing and units. No wasted 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?
Given a simple read-only preflight check, the description covers purpose, timing, checked criteria, and unit convention. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the 'whether... would be executable' phrasing, though naming sibling tools could have further improved routing.
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 documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description isn't required to compensate. It reinforces that amounts are RAW units, but no meaningful parameter semantics are added beyond 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?
States a specific action ('Check whether'), a specific resource ('a limit/DCA order for this pair and size'), and the feasibility criteria (oracle support, liquidity, minimum size). This makes it immediately distinct from quote/route lookup siblings even without naming them.
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?
'Run this before signing an order' gives explicit when-to-use timing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the pre-position relative to signing is clear context.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource (orders, quotes, routes, tokens, docs, examples), but market_stats, get_market_overview, and token_volume overlap on volume/engine-wide stats, and get_quote/get_route are closely related. Descriptions mitigate most misselection.
Most accessors use get_/list_/search_ verbs, but five tools (error_catalog, market_stats, order_preflight, recent_swaps, token_volume) use bare noun phrases instead of a consistent verb-first pattern. All names are snake_case and readable, so the mixed verbs are a moderate inconsistency.
At 15 tools the server is at the top of the ideal range and each area (market data, orders, quotes/routing, docs, examples) is represented. A few overlapping stats/volume tools make it feel slightly heavier than necessary, but the count is not a problem.
The read-only surface is fairly complete: quotes, routes, orderbook, order status/list, market stats, token search, docs, examples, and error catalog. However, there are no tools to create/submit or cancel orders, and no wallet/balance/allowance tools, so agents cannot complete an actual trade from quote to execution. This is a notable gap if the server is meant to support trading, not just research/development.