get_swap_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call is free, does not execute transactions, and returns an unsigned transaction with a requestId for later execution. It could add more detail about the transaction format or API key requirements, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured with an overview, Args, Returns, and a concrete example. Every section adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 covers purpose, parameters, return structure, and a usage example. Given the tool's simple nature and the absence of annotations, this description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with examples, including the meaning of 'amount' in smallest units and concrete mint addresses for SOL and USDC. This significantly exceeds the schema's bare property names.

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 states a specific action: 'Get a swap quote and unsigned transaction from Jupiter Ultra API.' It clearly identifies the resource and outcome, and explicitly distinguishes from execution tools by noting it 'does not execute any transactions.'

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this to get price quotes and prepare transactions for execution.' It also gives an implicit exclusion ('does not execute any transactions') that separates it from execution-oriented siblings, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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