Cambio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds relevant scope — it is an explanatory/knowledge tool constrained to eight named chains — though it does not say what form the answer takes or whether 'how to get it' involves any action.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers purpose, the triggering use case, an example, and the supported chains with no filler. It is dense — nested parentheses and the trailing chain list — but every clause carries 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is explained, the situation that warrants it, and the supported chains. Only the shape of the returned guidance is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 single enum parameter is fully documented with the same eight values the description lists. The description adds no format or selection nuance beyond the enum itself, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: explains which coin pays network fees and how to obtain a little of it. The scenario ('tokens stuck because the wallet holds none of that coin') makes it unmistakably distinct from the sibling get_quote and track_swap tools, which handle pricing and swap tracking rather than guidance.

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?

Clearly names the triggering condition — a wallet holds zero of the fee coin and therefore cannot move tokens, with a concrete example (USDT on Tron with no TRX). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to a sibling alternative, so it falls 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.

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces that this only returns a quote rather than creating a swap. It adds useful context that the card shows every amount and compares against other exchanges, though it does not discuss quote freshness, expiry, or rate limits.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and stays reasonably compact. Most sentences add value, though phrases such as “The card shows every amount” are somewhat vague and could be more precise.

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 rich annotations, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the key distinction between quoting and executing, the need for network context, and the comparison-card result. It could be stronger if it mentioned quote validity or freshness, but it is largely complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds only light reinforcement about each leg taking a network and gives network examples, which are already present 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?

States a specific verb and resource: Cambio’s quote for swapping an exact amount of one crypto asset to another, including comparison to other exchanges. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling track_swap tool, so it falls short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 when to use it: for someone who wants to swap, convert, or exchange crypto, or asks how much they would receive. It also clearly says when not to use it for execution: the swap itself is created on cambio.one or in Telegram, never here.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral content: an access-verification requirement matching cambio.one's own check and the failure mode (no details returned without the address). It doesn't describe freshness/polling behavior, which would be relevant for a status tracker.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and stages, then the hard prerequisite, then the failure consequence. Almost no wasted text, though the parenthetical re-explaining the payout address lightly duplicates the schema.

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 usefully summarizes the return value (stages with their times) and the empty-result case. Calling details are complete enough to invoke correctly; only polling/refresh expectations are unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add one meaningful thing beyond the schema — that receiving_address is effectively mandatory even though the schema lists only order_id as required — but otherwise restates the schema's wording.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Shows the status of a Cambio swap') and enumerates the lifecycle stages (deposit, confirming, exchanging, payout), which makes it clearly distinct in practice from get_quote and gas_help. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete usage condition: you need the order number AND the payout address the customer provided, mirroring cambio.one's own check, and warns that without the address no order details are returned. That is strong pre-call context, but it never contrasts this tool with get_quote or explains when status tracking is not the right call.

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