assetfare_v2_quote

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond them: the quote is 'fresh' and 'fee-inclusive,' SOL input includes a swap, and the cost comparison is not a guarantee ('not a guarantee AssetFare is cheapest'). The explicit 'Read-only; never authenticates, prepares, signs, or submits' reinforces the safety profile without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but purposeful. It front-loads the action and example, then adds caveats and a read-only note. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'caller-operated unsigned-plan handoff' and the dated '2026-09-23 evidence' could be simplified for readability. It is not overly verbose, but slightly more structure would improve scannability.

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 output schema exists (so return values are covered) and annotations already provide the read-only/destructive profile, the description covers the essential usage details: a representative example, amount-behavior thresholds, SOL swap note, and an explicit no-auth/prepare/sign/submit guardrail. The 'unsigned-plan handoff' phrase is a bit cryptic, but the output schema likely clarifies the handoff structure. Overall, an agent has enough to correctly invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it provides a full example mapping all five parameters, explains the distinct semantics of amount_usd values (1 = smoke, 50 = comparison start, 1000 = representative), and warns that SOL input includes a swap. This is genuinely helpful additional context that the schema's enum and minimum descriptions do not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one fresh fee-inclusive quote and caller-operated unsigned-plan handoff.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare and session tools, and the worked example ('from_chain='solana', from_token='USDC'...') concretely pins down the tool's job. No confusion about what this tool does.

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 gives explicit context about when to use the tool: amount thresholds (USD 1 smoke, USD 50 economic-comparison start, USD 1,000 representative) and a directive to 'Always compare fresh candidates at the actual intended amount.' It also states 'never authenticates, prepares, signs, or submits,' which implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool for those actions. It does not name sibling tools directly, but the exclusions are clear enough.

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