api_tinyman_get_swap_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'get quote' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, network latency, or what the quote includes (e.g., slippage, fees). For a financial tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be more informative. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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's complexity (7 parameters, financial operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'quote' returns (e.g., expected output, amounts, fees), behavioral context, or differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'mode' options (fixedInput vs. fixedOutput) or how 'amount' interacts with them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description 'Get quote for swapping assets' states the basic action (get quote) and resource (assets), but it's vague about what a 'quote' entails and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'api_haystack_get_swap_quote' or 'api_tinyman_get_liquidity_quote'. It lacks specificity about the Tinyman protocol context implied by the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'api_haystack_get_swap_quote' and 'api_tinyman_get_liquidity_quote', the description offers no context on differences (e.g., protocol, use cases, or prerequisites), leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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