Return the unsigned payload for a USER-signed wallet to complete: the tx object and, for Permit2 settlement, the EIP-712 typed data plus the byte offset where the wallet layer splices the 65-byte signature. This server never signs — it only shapes what a wallet needs to sign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote | Yes | The full quote object returned by rialto_get_quote |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing tokens, getting quotes, validating quotes, and building unsigned transactions. No overlapping functionality.
All tools use the 'rialto_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_tokens, get_quote, build_unsigned_tx). 'preflight' is slightly less conventional but still clear.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a read-only swap service, covering token discovery, quoting, preflight checks, and transaction building without unnecessary complexity.
The tool set covers the full workflow for a read-only swap server: token listing, quoting, validation, and unsigned transaction generation. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.