dex-swap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite check but doesn't describe key behavioral traits: it doesn't state that this is a destructive/write operation (implied by 'Execute' but not explicit), doesn't mention transaction costs, rate limits, or error conditions, and doesn't specify what happens on success/failure. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the core purpose and provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded with the main action.

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 of a DEX swap (financial transaction with multiple parameters) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides excellent usage guidance but lacks behavioral context about the transaction's nature, costs, or outcomes. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but for a tool that likely modifies state and involves financial risk, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 action ('Execute a token swap') and the resource ('on the DEX'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dex-simulate-swap' or 'dex-find-routes', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb 'Execute' suggests this performs the actual transaction rather than simulation or route finding.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('must first check two tokens are available in the DEX pools by using `dex-get-pools`'), providing clear prerequisites and naming a specific alternative tool. This gives strong guidance on the required sequence of operations, which is crucial for correct usage in a DEX context.

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