assetfare_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuine context beyond them: that it makes a network request and never authenticates, creates a session, prepares an action, signs, or submits, which clarifies its boundary versus prepare/auth siblings.

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?

Three compact sentences, all front-loaded: what it is, when to use it, and its safety/behavior boundary. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only quote tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully-described schema, the definition is nearly complete. It does not describe the return format, but with no output schema and an implied quote response this is a minor gap.

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%, and both parameters (amount_usd, destination_chain) are already documented in the schema with constraints and enums. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get Solana SOL to Base or Arbitrum ETH pricing') with explicit scope ('Legacy v1 original-corridor quote'). Names and distinguishes the sibling assetfare_v2_quote so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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 states when to use it ('only with the unversioned legacy wallet-auth/session tools') and when not ('for every new v2 evaluation use assetfare_v2_quote instead'). Names the alternative and the condition selecting it, leaving nothing to inference.

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