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.