topup_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'this tool only quotes'—indicating a read-only operation. It also notes that execution requires NANSWAP_API_KEY, providing context on what the tool does not do. This goes beyond a basic statement of purpose.

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 two sentences long and immediately front-loads the primary purpose. The second sentence adds the essential caveat about quoting-only and the API key requirement. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 is simple with only two parameters and has an output schema that presumably documents return values. The description covers the purpose, example assets, and the critical quote-only limitation. The main gap is the unexplained 'amount' parameter semantics, but overall the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving examples for the 'asset' parameter (e.g., USDC-BASE, USDT-SOL). However, it does not clarify the meaning or units of 'amount', nor does it state whether the amount is in the source asset or XNO. Thus, it adds value but leaves a gap for one of the two parameters.

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 function: 'Quote a small swap from another asset... into XNO for topping up the wallet.' It uses a specific verb (quote) and resource (swap into XNO) and provides concrete examples of supported assets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_quote by specifying the wallet top-up context.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for quoting small swaps into XNO for wallet topping. It also explicitly states 'this tool only quotes', implying it should not be used for execution. While no alternative tool is named, the scope is well-defined with no exclusions needed.

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