swaptitan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it handles complex tasks, which is implied by the name.

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?

Single clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and scope.

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 chat tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose and input; no output schema is needed as the response is natural language from the AI.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (wallet and message). Baseline score applies.

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 it is for chatting with the SwapTitan AI agent for complex crypto tasks and multi-step swaps, distinguishing it from specific swap tools like evm_swap or sol_swap.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools; lacks when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description reinforces this with 'needs no signature, never moves funds'. It also discloses the concrete JSON return shape, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover error cases or token-balance exclusions.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return example, and practical use case. Every sentence adds a distinct and necessary piece of information, and the most important facts are 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?

With no output schema, the JSON example fills the gap. It covers the chain, balance, and USD value, and the 'read-only' safety note plus intended swap use case makes the tool self-contained enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters in detail: the address format and chain enum are fully documented. The description adds the native-coin mapping (SOL, ETH, BNB) and the output semantics, but does not provide significant operational guidance beyond the schema itself.

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?

States the specific verb 'Look up' and resource 'native-coin balance of any wallet address', explicitly listing Solana, Ethereum, Base, and BNB Smart Chain. The response example clarifies the exact output, and mentioning 'native-coin' distinguishes it from sibling asset-listing tools like get_assets and get_prices.

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?

Gives a clear condition: 'Useful before building a swap to verify the wallet can cover amount plus network fees.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the native-balance framing plus the swap context provides enough directional guidance.

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

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description does not disclose critical behavioral aspects like the one-time nature of private key generation or the need to securely store it. This is a significant gap for a tool handling sensitive data.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide key details. No unnecessary words or structural issues.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and chain options. It is complete enough, though missing a warning about private key security.

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 explains the chain options with examples and grouping (EVM), adding value beyond the schema's enum and description. With 100% schema coverage, this extra context merits a 4.

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 it generates a non-custodial crypto wallet, returns address and private key, and specifies supported chains. It distinctly differs from sibling tools like evm_swap or check_portfolio.

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 explicit when or when-not guidance. The use case is implied by the tool name and description, but no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned. For a straightforward creation tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds critical context: server never touches funds, 0.3% fee, returns unsigned calldata. No contradiction.

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 with bold emphasis, front-loaded with key information. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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, description explains return format (unsigned calldata with to, data, value). Covers chains, fee, approval, and parameter details. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning by clarifying amount vs amountRaw (human vs base units) and the need for prior approval. Baseline 3, plus extra value.

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 it builds a non-custodial EVM DEX swap via KyberSwap aggregator on specific chains, returning unsigned calldata. Distinguishes from Solana swaps (sol_swap) and other tools.

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?

Specifies when to use (EVM DEX swaps) and prerequisites (ERC20 approval). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools provide alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. Description adds countable size and field details, which is helpful but not essential beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, efficiently conveys key information with 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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (list of assets with ticker, network, name). No output schema exists, but the description explains return fields well.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info (none needed).

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 lists all 1288+ supported swap assets, specifying the fields (ticker, network, name). It is distinct from siblings like get_prices or swap_create.

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?

Usage is implied (list when you need supported assets) but no explicit when-to-use or alternative tools mentioned. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: a hard limit of 200 results, newest-first ordering, and the specific pool (pAMMBay6/graduated pools). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it omits potential edge cases like empty results or time-window specifics.

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 focused sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and followed by output specifics and downstream use. Every sentence justifies itself.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned (mint addresses), quantity and ordering (up to 200, newest first), and the intended follow-up (pump_token_quote). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description imposes no parameter ambiguity and correctly avoids discussing parameters; baseline 4 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'recently detected pump.fun tokens', with added detail about indexing source (RiftBeam via Helius webhook) and output (up to 200 mint addresses, newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pump_token_quote, which is mentioned as the intended consumer of the output.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use the returned mint addresses as input for pump_token_quote, establishing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly list exclusion conditions, but the downstream instruction is strong; hence a 4.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'real-time' is mildly helpful but does not disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's function. Could optionally hint at return format (e.g., object with prices), but not essential.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description specifies which assets are covered, adding value beyond the schema. Baseline 4 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?

Clearly states the action (Get), resource (real-time USD prices), and specific assets (BTC, SOL, ETH, XMR). Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_portfolio or get_assets which have different purposes.

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?

Description implies usage for fetching current prices of listed cryptocurrencies. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward enough that agents can infer appropriate usage.

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

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the action is one-time, requires signing with the MAIN wallet, and is revocable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, confirmation steps, or whether it triggers any on-chain transactions. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the action, wallet requirement, fee, and revocability. No wasted words; structure is front-loaded with the key verb 'Get the one-time approveBuilderFee action'.

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 the simple input schema (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does. It could be improved by mentioning the expected output or next steps, but it remains functional for an approval action.

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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. It correctly focuses on the tool's action and context. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 obtains a one-time approveBuilderFee action for signing with the MAIN wallet, authorizing SwapTitan as a Hyperliquid builder at a specific fee. This is a distinct purpose from sibling tools like hl_build_order or hl_markets, which deal with order building and market data.

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 is a one-time approval action and mentions it's revocable, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other approval mechanisms or swap tools). The context from sibling tools suggests it's unique, but guidance on prerequisites or timing is missing.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool is non-custodial and returns an action + nonce to sign with the user's own wallet, adding context beyond the annotations (which indicate no destructive or read-only behavior). It provides essential behavioral traits without contradiction.

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 highly concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and critical steps. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return value (action + nonce) and the next step (POST to exchange). For a build-oriented tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it builds a ready Hyperliquid perpetual order action with specific builder code and minimal fee. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hl_approve, which is a prerequisite, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions to call hl_approve first, providing clear prerequisite usage. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms a read-only listing operation. It adds useful context like the exact number of markets (231) and the data returned (live prices, max leverage, size decimals), going beyond annotations.

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?

A single 14-word sentence concisely conveys purpose and output. No extraneous information; front-loaded with key details.

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 sufficiently explains the return data. For a zero-parameter list tool, this provides all necessary context.

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?

No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies since the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 lists all 231 Hyperliquid perpetuals markets with live prices, max leverage, and size decimals. This specific verb and resource is distinct from sibling tools like swap or approval tools.

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?

Usage is self-evident: use when you need to list all markets. No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, but given the simplicity and no parameters, it's clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: routing across 4000+ pools, Jupiter fallback, return fields (outAmount, source, priceImpact), and SOL→token direction. This goes beyond the safety profile already captured.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the resource and scope, the second explains routing and returns.

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 read-only quote tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, routing, return fields, direction of swap, and clearly implies no execution side effects. An agent can invoke this tool correctly with the given information.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minor semantic value by specifying SOL→token direction and the amountSol context, but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter documentation. 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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a native RiftBeam quote for any pump.fun AMM (pAMMBay6) token.' It distinguishes from sibling quote tools by narrowing scope to pump.fun tokens and mentioning best-price routing across 4000+ pools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a quote is needed for pump.fun AMM tokens, with routing details and fallback. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., sol_swap_quote) or state when not to use, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by listing the exact metrics returned and the intended use, which goes beyond the annotations.

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, front-loading the purpose and key metrics, followed by a concise usage tip. Every word carries meaning, no filler, and it is well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero params, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete: it enumerates the return values (the stats) and provides the usage context. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The input schema is empty, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param info.

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 what it does: 'Get live RiftBeam Solana aggregator stats' and lists specific metrics (win rate, pools indexed, mints, coverage %, lag slots, sampler performance). This distinguishes it from sibling swap/quote tools as a stats/info resource rather than a transaction tool.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use to assess routing quality before swapping.' This clearly indicates when to use it in the context of swapping, but it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to understand its role.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds that it returns risk score and warning flags, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations, but lacks details on behavior like rate limits or data sources.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and outputs. No output schema exists, but the description mentions what it returns, making it complete enough for an agent.

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 100%, meaning the schema already explains the two parameters (chain with enum/default and token address). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'token contract', specifying it checks for rug pulls/scams and returns risk score and warning flags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swap or portfolio checkers.

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 usage when evaluating a token for safety, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. No alternative tools are named.

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

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

The description minimally restates the annotations (non-destructive, non-readOnly). It does not disclose important behavioral details like alert persistence, overwriting behavior, or authorization requirements, which are not covered by annotations.

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 with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explains the trigger behavior.

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 tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens after setting an alert (e.g., confirmation, persistence) or how to manage alerts. The minimal detail leaves gaps for a user unfamiliar with the system.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds little new meaning. It repeats that triggers occur above/below target, which is already in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: setting a Telegram price alert for a crypto asset, with specific trigger conditions (above/below target). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_prices or rug_check.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use when you want to be notified of price changes'.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that it compares all available rails, ranks by net rate, returns Top-5 results, and provides ready-to-execute parameters. It also notes that own rails win on same-chain routes, adding behavioral nuance consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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, front-loads the core purpose ('Universal crypto router'), and packs meaningful differentiators—aggregator types, chain coverage, ranking logic, and execution-readiness—without 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape: best result plus Top-5 in results[] with ready-to-execute params. It also covers the key selection criteria and route breadth. A small gap is the lack of detail on result fields or failure behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a routing tool.

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 100% for from, to, and amount, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond confirming that swaps can include hard/exotic pairs, so a 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 states a specific function: 'compares ALL rails in one call' and clearly differentiates this router from sibling swap tools by covering Solana, EVM, and cross-chain providers in a single routing call. It also specifies the output: ranks by best NET rate and returns best + Top-5 results.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use for any swap incl. hard/exotic pairs.' It implies this tool is the broad comparison router versus single-chain swap tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by specifying return data (microLamports/CU percentiles and tiers) and 'live' nature, enriching behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence conveying purpose and usage guideline – every word earns its place. No fluff.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent: what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. Nothing missing.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so baseline is 4. Description needs no parameter details; it correctly focuses on the tool's function.

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 it provides live Solana priority-fee oracle data with specific outputs (percentiles and tiers). Distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which are fee oracles.

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 says 'Call before sending any Solana transaction' – a clear, actionable usage instruction. No ambiguity about when to use.

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

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

The description adds highly valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns an UNSIGNED transaction, is non-custodial, and explains the aggregator components (Orca, Raydium, Jupiter fallback) and fee. This goes far beyond the readOnlyHint false and openWorldHint true annotations, clarifying that the tool itself does not execute the swap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes necessary details without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 covers the return type (unsigned base64 VersionedTransaction), the signing requirement, and non-custodial nature, which is essential for a swap-building tool. It doesn't address parameter nuances like amount vs amountRaw mutual exclusivity, but the schema covers that. Given no output schema, it is sufficiently 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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to given the schema is thorough.

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 builds a non-custodial Solana DEX swap using the RiftBeam aggregator, and explicitly mentions it returns an unsigned base64 VersionedTransaction. This distinguishes it from siblings like sol_swap_quote (quotes) and evm_swap (EVM).

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 gives clear context: use this tool to build a swap transaction that the user must sign and send. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct. The non-custodial and unsigned-transaction details make the usage context clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the 10bps fee, the automatic best-price selection across named DEXs, and the source field return. No contradiction with annotations.

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 highly concise, using four short clauses to convey the essential information: what it is, how it works, what it returns, and the fee. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only quote tool, the description covers the core function, aggregation behavior, fee, and output source field. Schema covers params, and annotations cover safety. It doesn't detail the full return structure, but no output schema exists, so this is adequate. The context is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke it appropriately.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (from, to, amount, amountRaw). It does mention 'Human amount' and 'Base units' in the schema, but the description itself adds nothing extra.

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 it's a Solana DEX quote via RiftBeam aggregator, naming specific DEXs (Raydium CLMM, Orca Whirlpool, Jupiter) and explicitly says it returns a source field. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swap_quote (generic) and sol_swap (execution).

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 it's for getting quotes on Solana via RiftBeam, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, though the context of 'quote' vs 'swap' is implied by the tool name and siblings.

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

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds provider-specific return details (payinAddress vs redirectUrl), which goes beyond annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every phrase 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains return types for each provider. It covers all required parameters indirectly and mentions optional refundAddress. For a multi-provider cross-chain swap tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the provider parameter (enum values with asset counts and return types), elevating the score.

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 'Create a non-custodial cross-chain swap order' and provides specific details about three providers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like evm_swap or sol_swap.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use each provider (e.g., heleket for XMR-optimised, changenow for broad asset coverage) and notes that omitting provider triggers auto-select. It does not explicitly exclude use cases, but the sibling tool list implies this is for cross-chain swaps.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that the tool provides estimated output and minimum deposit, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 that conveys the essential information without redundancies. Every word earns its place.

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 simple quote tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outputs. However, the presence of the sibling 'sol_swap_quote' suggests a need for differentiation that is not addressed.

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 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves estimated output and minimum deposit for a swap pair. It uses specific verb and resource, but lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling 'sol_swap_quote'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like evm_swap, smart_route, or sol_swap_quote. The description implies usage but does not give context or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, reinforcing read-only nature. Description adds polling behavior, lifecycle transitions, and provider-specific detail (Heleket API) beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver purpose, polling guidance, lifecycle, and provider note. No fluff; front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, polling strategy, lifecycle, and provider-specific behavior. Lacks output format description, but given no output schema, the lifecycle states imply return values.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minor context for provider parameter (Heleket API). Baseline 3 is appropriate; schema already explains parameters adequately.

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?

Clear verb 'Check' and resource 'status of a swap order'. Polling and lifecycle details provide unambiguous scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like swap_create or check_portfolio.

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?

Explicit polling interval (20-30s) and lifecycle sequence (waiting->confirming->exchanging->done). No direct 'when not to use' statement, but context is sufficient for typical usage.

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