swap_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: fee applied at the quote layer, the 402 fee formula (max 50 bps / $0.50 min), gross/fee/net decomposition, honeypot blocking before quoting, quote TTL and single-fill semantics, and the amount_in_usd auto-approve basis.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and the fee/return semantics come first, with the ETH sentinel last. The parenthetical about the $0.50 minimum being a placeholder is slightly tangential, but nearly every sentence conveys callable-relevant 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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape (amount_out_gross, fee, amount_out_net) and the constraints an agent needs (TTL, single fill, blocked tokens, chain coverage). Nothing required for correct invocation is 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds one genuinely missing detail not in the schema — the ETH sentinel address on EVM — but does not clarify trader_id, decimals_in/out, or the amount format, so it only marginally exceeds the schema baseline.

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+resource ('Dry quote for a swap') plus the mechanism (real venue quotes from KyberSwap/Jupiter/0x, best net-of-fee fill wins). It is clearly separable from swap_execute, which it names as the consumer of these quotes.

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?

Explains quote lifetime (60 seconds, fill at most once), that swap_execute rejects stale/consumed quotes, and that quoting is always safe (no signing/broadcasting) — effectively telling the agent to call this before executing. It never explicitly says 'call this to preview before swap_execute,' so it stops 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.