Get Swap Quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns an unsigned transaction for client-side signing and requires an API key. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or what happens in error cases. For a quoting tool, the safety profile is less critical, but the description could be more transparent about the lack of state modification.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given that there is no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the purpose, usage guidance, and basic return type (unsigned TX). It could be slightly improved by mentioning what data the quote includes (e.g., expected output amount, price impact) or any time limit on the quote, but it is largely 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters; it only adds context about API key requirement and usage flow.

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 price quote and unsigned transaction for swapping tokens on SunSwap DEX. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'execute_swap' by specifying that this tool is for getting the quote and unsigned TX, while the other handles submission after signing.

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 provides clear guidance: use this tool to get an unsigned TX, then sign it client-side and submit via 'execute_swap'. It also mentions the requirement for an API key. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or discuss alternative scenarios.

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