assetfare_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specifics beyond annotations: it makes a network request and never authenticates, creates a session, prepares an action, signs, or submits. This aligns with annotations and provides richer behavioral context.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance and behavioral disclosure follow efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple legacy quote tool with only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description provides all necessary context: legacy status, exact corridor, and explicit routing to the v2 alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level details beyond the route context, which is already clear from the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('get'), resource ('Solana SOL to Base or Arbitrum ETH pricing'), and clearly identifies it as the legacy v1 original-corridor quote. It explicitly differentiates from the v2 sibling tool, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly instructs when to use ('with the unversioned legacy wallet-auth/session tools') and when not to ('for every new or six-chain evaluation use assetfare_v2_quote instead'). Names the alternative directly, leaving no ambiguity.

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