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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it returns a quote only, never a transaction, amounts remain in base units because decimals are not looked up, and the call has a specific paid x402 pricing model with failed calls not charged.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the quote-only constraint, base-unit caveat, and pricing. Some return-field detail is redundant because an output schema exists, but the text is generally efficient.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool: chain, aggregator, exact-input quote semantics, base-unit handling, read-only behavior, and the cost model.

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 parameter schema already explains amount, inputMint, outputMint, and slippageBps. The description reinforces base-unit semantics and exact-input behavior but does not add syntax or format details 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: a Jupiter aggregator quote on Solana for an exact-input swap. It also scopes it as quote-only with no transaction, which cleanly distinguishes it from execution or non-Solana routing tools.

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 gives clear usage context: Solana, exact-input swap, base-unit amounts, and quote-only behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as the sibling 1inch or SushiSwap quote tools, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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