Validate a Rialto quote (as returned by rialto_get_quote) against baseline safety checks — issues, settlement sanity, staleness, slippage ceiling, fee cap, zero-output guard. Returns ok / refusals / warnings / notes. Run before any signing step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote | Yes | The full quote object returned by rialto_get_quote | |
| maxSlippageBps | No |
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.
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.