Sonar exact-output quote

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: the quote is short-lived, fails closed if tolerance is exceeded, and returns an input amount (amount_in_atoms). It also clarifies the interaction between minimum_output_atoms and maximumToleranceBps, adding value beyond the read-only annotation.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently covers the key details without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's function, parameters, and execution flow. It mentions the returned amount_in_atoms and the reuse of the quote_id flow, but does not enumerate the full response structure since no output schema is provided. This is acceptable given the context.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description mostly reiterates these points (e.g., tolerance behavior) and adds minimal new context about route inversion. The added value is marginal since schema coverage is 100%.

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's purpose: requesting a short-lived quote for an exact output amount and inverting the route to return the required input. It includes a concrete example and distinguishes the exact-output behavior from other quote tools.

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 explains how to use the quote (execute with the same quote_id flow as strata_quote) and implies the appropriate scenario (when you know the desired output). However, it does not explicitly contrast with exact-input quote tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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