fomo_request_swap_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that this is a quote (not an execution) and defines token ID format and amount units, but it does not mention response shape, whether the quote is indicative/expiring, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action; no filler. The format note earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter quote tool, the description covers the essential call semantics. However, with no output schema and no annotation, it leaves the agent to infer the shape and validity of the returned quote and any execution-related caveats.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining the format for inTokenId/outTokenId ('<mint>:<chainId>') and the unit for amount ('base units'). It does not give examples or clarify decimal handling, but the core semantics are present.

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 states a specific action ('Quote a swap') on a clear resource, and it adds the token ID format to disambiguate the input convention. It stands apart from the sibling getters/search tools, though no other swap tool exists to compare against.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The use case is only implied by the name and 'Quote a swap', so an agent must infer that this is for obtaining swap quotes rather than executing them.

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