Quote a swap (read-only)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It conveys the simulation nature and lack of transaction execution, but doesn't disclose behavior around slippage handling, error responses, or whether it returns the best route. Adequate but not detailed.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words; every part is informative.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only vaguely hints at the return value ('how much you'd receive') without specifying format (number vs object), additional fields (price impact, fee), or error behavior. This leaves agents guessing about the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no significant parameter-level detail beyond noting the TON address convention for offerAddress. 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?

The description explicitly states 'Simulate an exact-in swap' and specifies the input/output relationship (how much ask token for offer amount). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tegro_dex_assets or tegro_dex_pools by focusing on quoting a swap.

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 clearly states this is read-only ('No transaction is built or signed'), implying it's for estimation before execution. It doesn't explicitly exclude use cases or provide alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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