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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses non-custodial operation, per-trade costs, the free launch-set tokens, the return fields (amount_out, tier, venue, route), and that quotes are free. It doesn't discuss failure modes or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is highly informative.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the free-tier distinction and execution routing before parameter details. It is slightly long, but every sentence carries necessary information and there is little redundancy.

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?

For a quote tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: chains, token format, amount precision, pricing, and execution routing. Gaps include exact chain enum values and error/liquidity behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in prose.

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 compensates by explaining token_in/token_out accept symbols or contract addresses, listing accepted symbols, and defining amount_in as raw integer units with concrete examples. It doesn't enumerate exact chain strings, but the chains are listed in the description.

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 identifies the tool as a live swap quote provider for the Super Intelligence Exchange, specifying its non-custodial nature, supported chains, and free vs. paid token distinctions. It also explicitly contrasts itself with siexchange_calldata, making its purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 directs agents to use siexchange_calldata for execution while this tool is for quotes, and it clarifies when the free tier applies versus the paid tier. It also states that quotes cost nothing, giving clear cost-based guidance for whether to call this tool.

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