swap_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns a quote (non-destructive) and is free. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the quote response contains. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences: first describes purpose and constraints, second notes cost. No fluff, front-loaded with critical information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 8 parameters (7 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core function and constraints but lacks details on expected output, error handling, or parameter value restrictions. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as constraining fromToken/toToken to specific BTC/USDC addresses or chain IDs. It misses an opportunity to clarify parameter values for this specific use case.

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 gets a 'Raw Li.Fi swap quote on Base for BTC/USDC only'. It specifies the network, allowed token pairs, and that it's free. This verb+resource+constraint combination distinguishes it from siblings like swap_via_nattswap which executes 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 description explicitly limits usage to BTC/USDC on Base, implying when to use and when not. It also mentions 'Free — no x402' to indicate cost. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or provide explicit alternatives for other pairs/chains.

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