estimate_swap_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'estimate fees' with no mention of side effects, whether it is read-only, how fees are calculated, or if it makes any external calls. The minimal wording leaves safety and operational behavior 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and timing in a compact form.

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 simple, with no output schema and no annotations, and the description only says it estimates fees. It does not disclose what the fee estimate consists of (e.g., currency, breakdown) or any caveats, which would be valuable for an agent deciding whether to proceed. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Source currency code (e.g. USD)'). The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'estimate' and names the resource 'fees for a currency swap,' which differentiates it from executing tools like swap_currency and rate tools like get_exchange_rate. It precisely states what the tool does: computes fee estimates, not rates or actual swaps.

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 phrase 'before executing' provides clear context that this tool should be used prior to swap_currency. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full usage-guide.

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