Swap quote (ETH → token)

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

The description adds real context beyond readOnlyHint=true: it discloses that the response contains expected amount, USD values, gas, a TypeAI fee, slippage, and safety warnings — a non-obvious behavioral trait. It stops short of noting quote volatility/expiry or whether warnings can block the trade.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with what it returns and closed with the key non-mutation fact. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields, which is the main completeness gap it could close. It leaves minor gaps: the accepted token identifier format and whether a quote expires before prepare_swap consumes it.

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% with all three parameters documented, including the slippage default and automatic buy-tax adjustment. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Live quote for swapping ETH into a Robinhood Chain token') and enumerates the returned fields. It doesn't name robinhood_prepare_swap explicitly, so the differentiation from that sibling is left implicit, but the direction (ETH→token) and read-only nature are unambiguous.

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?

'Doesn't create anything' implies the read-only pricing step and hints that a separate tool performs the actual swap, but the description never names robinhood_prepare_swap or states when the quote should be refreshed. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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