Chat with SwapTitan AI agent for complex crypto tasks, multi-step swaps, and natural language queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | No | Optional wallet address for context | |
| message | Yes | Natural language message |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
