ugf_smart_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It details that it fetches all wallet balances in parallel, gets quotes for all options, and returns ranked choices. This is transparent, though it omits whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose ('Auto-discover the best payment route') and then briefly explaining the process. 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?

With all parameters documented and the description explaining the discovery process and output (ranked choices), the tool is fairly complete for its complexity. However, the lack of an output schema means the description could be more precise about the return 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% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds that the agent provides 'calldata and destination', which maps to tx_object and chain parameters, but does not offer additional semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 auto-discovers the best payment route, fetches balances, gets quotes, and returns ranked cheapest first. This distinguishes it from the sibling ugf_quote, as it adds discovery logic.

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 says 'Agent just provides calldata and destination', indicating simple invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like ugf_quote, leaving slight ambiguity.

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