get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'best route, output amount, calldata, gas,' which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention that no state changes occur, nor does it discuss permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. 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?

The description consists of two sentences: the first states the tool's function, and the second provides essential prerequisite guidance. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides useful prerequisite guidance (use get_chains and get_tokens first) but lacks details on output format, parameter interdependencies (e.g., sender/receiver optionality, fee constraint), or common error scenarios. It is somewhat complete but could be more helpful for a complex multi-parameter 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond summarizing the overall return. It does hint at requiring prior resolution of chain IDs and token addresses, but this is more about usage context. With complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get a cross-chain quote: best route, output amount, calldata, gas.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_chains (which lists chains) and get_tokens (which lists tokens) by specifying that it provides a quote for cross-chain transfers.

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 advises to use get_chains and get_tokens first to resolve chain IDs and token addresses, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly address when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient given the sibling tools serve different purposes.

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