trust_swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: 'Checks both tokens for safety' and 'returns a Uniswap quote with calldata'. However, it does not cover potential failure modes, gas costs, or other side effects, leaving gaps 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately state the tool's action and key differentiator. Every word is necessary—no redundancy, no filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the main return value (Uniswap quote with calldata) and the safety check behavior. It lacks details on quote format, error conditions, or potential limitations, but for a simple swap quoting tool, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., token addresses, amount in wei, slippage tolerance). The safety-check behavior is mentioned but does not directly enrich parameter understanding.

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 purpose: getting a trust-verified swap quote with calldata, including safety checks on tokens. It explicitly distinguishes from raw DEX quotes with 'Use this instead of raw DEX quotes', which provides strong differentiation from sibling tools.

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 to use this tool instead of raw DEX quotes for safety. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the context suggests alternatives (raw DEX quotes) and the safety benefit is highlighted. More explicit exclusions would improve the score.

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