swap_via_nattswap

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses side effects: 'MCP read-only until wallet signs' and mentions on-chain costs. It explains the return type (route JSON + instructions). However, it does not detail error handling or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Description is fairly concise, around 6 sentences, with clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS). It front-loads the purpose. Minor redundancy (mentioning not limited to BTC/USDC twice) but overall efficient.

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 8 parameters (7 required) and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and usage context well. It specifies what is returned (route, instructions, recommended_action). It does not cover error scenarios but is sufficiently complete for a quote 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., fromAmount in wei, address format, slippage percent), but mostly reinforces schema descriptions. It does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'cross-chain token swap via Li.Fi across Li.Fi-routed chains (any pair — not limited to BTC/USDC).' It uses a specific verb (swap) and resource (tokens), and distinguishes from sibling tools like swap_quote by specifying it returns route JSON and execution instructions.

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: bridge, fund gas, treasury routing' and 'NOT WHEN: Decision Core BTC reads (get_btc_usdc_signal / trap / hunt)' provide clear context and alternatives. The description also notes that vault signals stay BTC/USDC only, helping the agent decide when to use this tool.

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