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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the paid endpoint cost ($0.005 USDC) and the embedded 3 bp execution fee, which is valuable. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool executes the swap on-chain or only prepares it, nor does it mention auth, rate limits, or side effects beyond the fee.

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 compact sentences carry the essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it costs. There is no filler or repetition, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description names the key output qualities (route, risk, slippage, fee disclosure) and the cost, which helps an agent decide to invoke it. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves ambiguity about what 'prepare' returns, whether the swap is actually executed, and what prerequisites or follow-up steps the agent must handle.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds the useful constraint that the swap is USDC-paired, but it does not explicitly map that to token_in/token_out. It adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Discover and prepare') with a concrete resource ('risk-checked Solana swap'), and adds distinguishing qualifiers: USDC-paired, explicit route, risk, slippage, and fee disclosure. It clearly separates this tool from the sibling preflight_capabilities by focusing on swap preparation rather than capability introspection.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when an autonomous agent needs a USDC-paired Solana swap with route, risk, slippage, and fee disclosure. It provides clear use context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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