swap_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a list of quotes and expects a container, but it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or required permissions, leaving significant gaps.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly.

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 (nested schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain what a swap quote is, prerequisites, or how slippage should be set, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description only adds 'Expects a SwapQuoteRequestContainer' and mentions slippage. It does not explain the purpose of the container or the inner parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves a swap quote, which is a specific action. The name 'swap_quote' and verb 'retrieve' make the purpose obvious, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'swap_transaction'.

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 implies usage context (before a swap) by mentioning slippage and expected input/output, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when a quote is needed before executing a swap.

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