Rialto Swap (read-only)

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavior: the server never signs, only shapes the payload for the wallet. It also details special handling for Permit2 settlement.

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 that efficiently convey the purpose, return structure, and a key behavioral note. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (tx object and Permit2 details) and the tool's role. With one well-described parameter, this is complete.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, which already states the quote comes from rialto_get_quote. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 an unsigned payload for a wallet to sign, and distinguishes it from siblings like rialto_get_quote (which gets quotes) by focusing on transaction construction.

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 implies this tool is used after obtaining a quote (since it takes a quote object), but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning 'human-unit amounts, the guaranteed minimum, every fee line, route stats, and blockers' and the API key requirement, but does not indicate side effects (likely none), rate limits, or idempotency. For a quote tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 concise, using four short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description explains return content and a critical parameter format. However, it omits how the quote connects to other tools (e.g., building a transaction), default values (chainId, gasless), and does not fully replace a missing output schema by detailing all return fields.

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 high (75%), and the description adds useful context by explicitly stating that sellAmount is a 'HUMAN decimal like "0.01", never raw units'. It also overviews return fields, which compensates for any missing parameter details and enhances understanding 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 clearly states 'Get a best-execution swap quote from Rialto', specifying the verb, resource, and purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rialto_build_unsigned_tx and rialto_preflight by focusing solely on quoting.

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 mentions the required API key and clarifies that sellAmount must be in human units. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like rialto_preflight or rialto_build_unsigned_tx, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites beyond the API key.

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

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

Describes itself as a 'Public endpoint' and an idempotent list operation. While no annotations are provided, the description adequately conveys it is read-only and safe to call. Lacks explicit statement about no side effects but strongly implied.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Action and key context are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, output fields, chain, public access, and sequential usage. For a tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is fully complete.

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?

No parameters in schema; description doesn't need to compensate. It adds value by explaining the output fields and context, which is sufficient for a baseline 4.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'every token quotable on Rialto for Robinhood Chain', with specific output fields (symbol, address, decimals, type). Differentiates from siblings by indicating it is a prerequisite for quoting.

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?

Explicitly says 'call this before quoting to resolve symbols and decimals', providing a clear when-to-use directive. Also notes it is a public endpoint, implying no authentication needed.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the validation checks and return categories (ok, refusals, warnings, notes), but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, mention authentication needs, or detail failure behavior. The description is adequate but not highly detailed.

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 that efficiently convey purpose, checks performed, return types, and usage advice. No redundant information, each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and a nested 'quote' parameter, the description could be more complete. It lists checks and return categories but lacks details on response format or prerequisites (e.g., quote freshness). The usage hint helps, but overall there is room for improvement.

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 50% (only 'quote' parameter has description). The tool description mentions 'slippage ceiling' which relates to 'maxSlippageBps' but does not directly explain the parameter's role. The description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates a Rialto quote, lists specific safety checks (issues, settlement sanity, staleness, slippage ceiling, fee cap, zero-output guard), and distinguishes it from siblings like rialto_get_quote (which returns quotes) and rialto_build_unsigned_tx (which would build the transaction).

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?

Explicitly advises 'Run before any signing step,' indicating when to use it. Implicitly suggests it follows rialto_get_quote and precedes signing. Does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct and usage is clear.

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