quotes / swap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real precondition (an audited Rootstock SOR must exist) but does not say what happens when it fails, whether an error or empty result is returned, or what the quote contains — and the phrasing is cryptic enough to be ambiguous.

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?

Short but not informative: a single clause pair that is under-specified rather than concise. It leads with an abstract phrase instead of the operation, so the brevity costs clarity rather than gaining it.

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?

With no output schema, no annotation gaps filled, and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description carries the full explanatory load — and it delivers only a precondition. An agent knows it may fail but not what it returns or how to fill the six inputs.

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?

Six parameters, four required, at 0% schema description coverage — chain_id, token_in, token_out, amount_raw, pool and sender are documented nowhere. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so an agent cannot tell whether token addresses are symbols, whether amount_raw is a decimal string in base units, or what `pool` constrains.

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 never says what the tool actually does. "Return explicit routing prerequisites" names an abstract concept rather than a verb+resource pair like "get a swap quote for a token pair on a chain"; the only concrete noun, "quote", appears in a negative clause about unavailability.

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?

It states one gating condition ("quote unavailable without audited Rootstock SOR") but gives no when-to-use framing and never points at any of the 36 siblings, such as transactions.simulate or transactions.call_router, that an agent might confuse this with.

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