loot_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses revert behavior ('A revert here means the trade would fail and the reason is reported'), which is valuable. It also implies read-only semantics via 'eth_call', but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified. The absence of an explicit read-only disclosure is a minor gap, but the revert disclosure adds transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: the first defines the tool's function, the second explains side-dependent parameter selection, and the third communicates failure behavior. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose. No fluff or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the most critical points: what the quote provides, how to choose the correct amount parameter, and revert semantics. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or explain the 'token' and 'from' parameters. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves some gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the side-conditional usage of amount_eth and amount_tokens, which is essential for correct invocation. However, it does not explain the 'token' parameter (beyond the schema's pattern) or the optional 'from' parameter. This partial compensation keeps it at a baseline of 3 rather than higher.

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 it provides an execution-time quote via eth_call with exact tick math, fees, and caps for the calling wallet. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from execution tools like loot_buy/loot_sell, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives guidance on parameter usage ('side buy takes amount_eth, side sell takes amount_tokens'), which is useful for constructing the call, but it does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like loot_buy or loot_sell. It implies it's a pre-trade check but never explicitly states 'use this to validate a trade before executing' or contrasts with alternative tools.

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