orbs_get_quote

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the prerequisite that token addresses are needed and directs users to resolve_token, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't disclose internal API behavior or error conditions, but with strong annotations this is sufficient.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second sentence provides a critical prerequisite. There is no fluff or redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the same-chain scope, and the prerequisite. It could mention what the quote contains or that slippage applies, but the schema covers slippagePct and the purpose is well-understood. It's fairly complete for a quote tool with strong annotations.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all fields. The description reinforces that fromToken/toToken are token addresses and that the swap is same-chain, but it doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema, which already documents units, slippage, and defaults. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a quote from Orbs Liquidity Hub for same-chain aggregated swap.' It uses a specific verb ('Get a quote'), names the resource, and defines the scope ('same-chain aggregated swap'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lifi_get_quote (bridge quotes) and orbs_swap (actual execution).

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 clear usage context: it's for same-chain aggregated swaps and requires token addresses, with an explicit prerequisite to use resolve_token first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as lifi_get_quote, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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