swap_currency

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 mentions that the exchange rate is calculated automatically, but it does not disclose that this is a transactional, likely irreversible operation with potential fees, authorization requirements, or a specific response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and the key differentiator. Every word earns its place, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema details.

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 performs a token swap, which is a non-trivial transaction on Hedera. With no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description, it lacks critical operational context: return value (e.g., transaction ID), possible side effects, prerequisites (e.g., approvals, OTP), and relationship to related tools like estimate_swap_fees. This is incomplete for a transactional tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of automatic exchange rate calculation adds the insight that no separate rate parameter is needed, but it does not add detail about the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself describes each parameter with examples, so the description is neither redundant nor insufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'Swap' with a clear resource ('between two Hedera tokens') and adds the key detail that exchange rate is calculated automatically. This distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_swap_fees and get_exchange_rate, which focus on fees or rates rather than executing the swap.

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 implies the usage context—use this tool when you want to swap between two Hedera tokens. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'if you only need the exchange rate, use get_exchange_rate' or 'if you need to transfer without swapping, use transfer_tokens.'

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