usdc_get_trade_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the return is amountOutRaw and that slippage must be applied downstream, but says nothing about quote expiry/staleness or whether the apiKey/accountRef parameters are required for a read.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the one actionable next step. No filler and nothing important buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract; it names amountOutRaw and the slippage step, which is the essential part. It is slightly thin on auth requirements (apiKey, accountRef, sessionPrivateKey) and the full shape of the quote response, but the safety annotation covers the main risk.

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 every parameter including side, payAsset, chainId and amountInRaw is already documented in the schema; the description only loosely restates payAsset via 'USDC- or native-paid'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (quote for a USDC/native-paid buy or a sell to USDC) and names the downstream siblings usdc_buy / usdc_sell, so the agent can place it in the trade flow. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling quote tool usdc_get_convert_quote, leaving one routing ambiguity.

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 phrase 'apply slippage to get the minimum out for usdc_buy / usdc_sell' implies this is a pre-trade quote that feeds those tools, but it never says explicitly 'call this before usdc_buy/usdc_sell' or when NOT to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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