swap_via_nattswap

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a route and suggests actions, emphasizes 'MCP read-only until wallet signs', and notes gas and integrator fees. This gives the agent an accurate picture of side effects and costs, exceeding typical 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?

The description is compact but information-dense, with sections for purpose, use cases, return values, and side effects. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition. The structure is easy to parse despite the all-caps emphasis.

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 swap tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: what is returned (route, readiness, actions), how to proceed (sign actions in order), cost implications (free MCP, on-chain fees), and side effects (read-only until signing). This is complete enough for an agent to act safely and effectively.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'Prefer signing swap_actions_v1 in order') but does not elaborate on individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden, and the description provides no additional per-parameter semantics.

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 the tool performs a 'cross-chain token swap powered by Li.Fi across 70+ chains', using a specific verb and resource. It also highlights Hyperliquid support, distinguishing it from siblings like get_liq_radar. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' list provides concrete scenarios (bridge, fund gas, treasury routing, rebalance), giving clear context for when to invoke. It stops short of naming specific alternatives or when not to use, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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