lifi_get_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about supported chains and the dependency on token addresses, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. With annotations covering the core safety, a score of 3 is appropriate for the additional context provided.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the function, listing supported chains, and giving a prerequisite. No filler or redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers necessary context.

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?

The tool is a read-only quote fetcher with fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action, chain support, and a prerequisite. It is missing a note about how the quote fits into the broader workflow (e.g., that it should be followed by lifi_execute_bridge or lifi_prepare_bridge_intent), but given the simplicity of a quote tool, the description is largely complete.

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% — all five parameters have descriptive comments (e.g., 'Source token address', 'Amount in smallest token units'). The description adds the note to use resolve_token first, which reinforces addressing but does not add new parameter-level meaning. Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 the action: 'Get a cross-chain bridge/swap quote from LI.FI.' It names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('quote'), and a source ('LI.FI'), which differentiates it from execution tools like lifi_execute_bridge and other providers like orbs_get_quote. The chain support list adds specificity without obscuring the core purpose.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires token addresses — use resolve_token first to get addresses.' This guides the user on a necessary step before calling the tool. It also implies a usage context (getting a quote before executing a bridge), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like orbs_get_quote. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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