Retrieve a cross-chain route quote with fees and transfer limits for a given token and amount, helping estimate costs and constraints.
Get a quote for a route including fees and limits
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token address or identifier | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to transfer | |
| toChain | Yes | Destination chain identifier | |
| fromChain | Yes | Source chain identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-like quote operation but does not clarify that it does not execute the transfer, nor does it disclose authentication, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and supplemental details. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly richer for the complexity.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return format or what the quote includes beyond 'fees and limits'. With four required parameters and no annotations, the definition is too sparse to call it complete.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 a quote for a route', and specifies the scope includes fees and limits. It is clear what the tool does, though there are no similarly named sibling tools to distinguish it from.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply describes the action without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.