swap_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It indicates a read operation (retrieve quote) with no side effects, but does not disclose any prerequisites, data sources, or potential errors. The mention of slippage suggests a need for careful input, but overall transparency is minimal.

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 core action. The instruction 'Be sure to add slippage!' is efficient but slightly imperative. No unnecessary words, though it could be more structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (container input, batch quotes) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains expectations. It covers input type and output type, but could mention that it accepts multiple requests in the container. Overall, it meets the needs for a quote retrieval 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?

The input schema includes descriptive hints for 'slippage' and token fields, yet the description adds no extra meaning beyond referencing the container type. With schema description coverage at 0% (according to context, though the schema itself has some descriptions), the description fails to clarify parameter relationships or usage beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Retrieve a swap quote' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions the expected input type and output type, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'swap_transaction' which might be confused with this quote retrieval.

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 advises to 'Be sure to add slippage!' which is a helpful usage hint. However, it does not provide explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., obtaining a quote before executing a swap). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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