get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the AMM math, computed fields (fee, price impact, minimum received after slippage), which is genuinely useful, but never states explicitly that this is a non-mutating read with no on-chain side effects, and says nothing about auth needs or freshness/staleness of the quote.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs, then the conditional parameter guidance. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return values (expected output, fee, price impact, minimum received), compensating for the missing structured output. It stops short of noting the quote's non-mutating nature, which is the one residual gap.

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 five parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds only the pool-discovery nuance ('auto-discover the best pool') beyond the schema's own note that poolAppId is optional, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get a swap quote from PactFi') and names the exact outputs computed, distinguishing it from the sibling transaction tools swap_txn/add_liquidity_txn which mutate state. An agent can tell this is the read-only preview step.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance for pool selection: 'Provide either a poolAppId or fromToken+toToken symbols to auto-discover the best pool.' It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over swap_txn (i.e., quote before executing), but the context is strong and the parameter choice is disambiguated.

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