magicblock swap

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

The description states it builds an unsigned transaction, which is non-destructive, but annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects or prerequisites beyond the price.

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 extremely concise at two sentences: first states purpose, second explains modes and cost. No wasted words.

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 complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details like prerequisites, error conditions, or explanation of the output other than it being unsigned. The output schema likely covers return details, so this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all 11 parameters well. The description adds minimal additional meaning (e.g., mode explanations), so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool builds an unsigned swap transaction from a quote, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between public and private modes, and the purpose is unique among siblings (e.g., jupiter_swap executes, magicblock_swapQuote provides quotes).

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 implies the tool should be used after obtaining a quote ('from a quote'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like jupiter_swap or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditional usage are mentioned.

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