Swap Tokens via Fibrous

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

Adds value beyond annotations by specifying automatic handling of ERC-20 approvals and wrap/unwrap, and the simulate option for preview. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true is consistent with swap).

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?

Five concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behaviors. No wasted words, each sentence provides distinct information.

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?

No output schema and description doesn't mention return values (e.g., transaction hash) except gas estimates for simulate. Lacks details on failure behavior, token prerequisites, or error handling, which is significant for a swap tool with 6 parameters.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds specific explanation for simulate parameter (preview and gas estimates) but doesn't enhance meaning for other parameters beyond schema strings.

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?

Clear verb 'Swap' and resource 'tokens using Fibrous aggregator' immediately conveys the action. Distinguishes from siblings like send_tokens and get_balance.

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?

Describes what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., send_tokens) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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