swarme_vault_fill_quoteReturn a bounded Vault document-fill quote with wallet, spend, provider-cost, and quote-lock policy metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output_format | No | ||
| template_body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists output metadata and says the quote is 'bounded.' It does not disclose whether quote-lock policy reserves or locks funds, whether the quote expires, or whether this operation is strictly read-only, which is significant for a quote/fill tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes either to scope ('bounded Vault document-fill quote') or to the expected output contents ('wallet, spend, provider-cost, quote-lock policy metadata').
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?
Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the definition still lacks input semantics, usage context, and behavior around quote locking. The two parameters are not meaningfully explained, and there is no guidance on interacting with sibling fill/quote tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain template_body or output_format at all. The phrase 'document-fill quote' weakly hints at template_body's role, but no actual parameter mapping or usage detail is provided.
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 ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('bounded Vault document-fill quote') with the key metadata fields it exposes. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like swarme_vault_fill or swarme_tool_quote, but the 'quote' framing makes the pre-execution intent reasonably clear.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as swarme_vault_fill or swarme_tool_quote. The name and 'quote' wording imply it is for obtaining an estimate before a fill, but the description never states this explicitly.
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.
Tools are grouped into distinct resource families (account, AI, capabilities, discover, experiments, tool runs, uploads, vault), so most are easy to tell apart. However, multiple 'status' tools and the two Vault metadata tools (documents and summary) could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully.
All tools share a consistent swarme_ prefix and snake_case style, making them predictable. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, and there is a plural mismatch between swarme_capabilities_search and swarme_capability_describe, but the naming is generally coherent.
22 tools is on the heavy side and above the typical 3-15 range for a focused MCP server. While the platform covers many domains and each tool has a role, several status-related tools could have been consolidated.
Core workflows like tool runs, experiments, AI model jobs, and Vault fills are well covered. Notable gaps remain: no cancellation for AI jobs or experiments, no listing endpoints for runs/experiments, no Vault field read/delete, and the upload session has no companion completion/status tool.