get_swap_quote

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what is returned, or any side effects. It only states it gets a quote, leaving the agent to infer semantics.

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 a single concise sentence that is easily scannable. However, it could slightly benefit from structured formatting to highlight key points, but it is not verbose.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description is minimal and does not explain what the quote contains, how to interpret it, or any prerequisites like token existence. It is incomplete for effective use.

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 any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the difference between token symbols and mint addresses.

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 retrieves a swap quote between two tokens via Jupiter aggregator, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transfer_token' or 'burn_tokens', but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 implies usage for obtaining a quote before swapping, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use slippage or not. No when-not or alternative tool mentioned.

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