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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of safety and behavior info. It discloses that the quote is computed on-chain by the Quoter contract, that the checks object carries fail-closed verdicts (blocked/danger/caution/ok), and that an optional recipient yields signable tx calldata. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond a simple GET.

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 three sentences with no filler; every sentence contributes either the core function, the safety-check semantics, or the recipient option. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's richness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it lists route, expected output, price impact, enforced minimum, and the checks object with verdicts. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it could be more explicit about the exact structure of the checks object.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, noting that the recipient parameter triggers signable calldata and that rpc switches to a private node, but these are minor additions over the schema.

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 verb 'Get' plus the resource 'on-chain DEX aggregator quote' clearly identifies the tool's function, and the phrase 'computed by the Quoter contract, not an off-chain API' differentiates it from typical aggregator services. It also lists the returned elements (route, expected output, price impact, minimum), 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 states when to use the tool: 'quote these when a user asks whether a swap is safe.' It also provides the alternative of providing a custom RPC for volume control, and notes that adding a recipient returns calldata. However, it does not explicitly compare against the sibling tools (check_solvency, xray_scan), though they appear unrelated.

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