swap_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'returns a list of SwapQuoteResponse', which hints at output format, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'retrieve' but not explicit). The 'Be sure to add slippage!' is a useful constraint but insufficient for comprehensive transparency.

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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence ('Be sure to add slippage!') is somewhat vague and could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids redundancy but under-specifies key details, making it more sparse than efficiently concise.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is incomplete. It identifies the tool's purpose and hints at a parameter requirement but lacks sufficient detail on input semantics and behavioral context for a tool involving financial quotes, leaving gaps in usability.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does poorly. It names 'SwapQuoteRequestContainer' as the expected parameter but provides no explanation of what this contains (e.g., tokens, amounts, slippage). The 'Be sure to add slippage!' hints at a required field but doesn't clarify parameter structure or semantics beyond the schema's bare reference.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve a swap quote' (verb+resource), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'swap_transaction' (execution vs. quote) and 'stake_quote' (different operation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'unstake_quote' or other quote tools beyond the 'swap' prefix.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'Be sure to add slippage!' which hints at a required parameter consideration but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swap_transaction' or 'stake_quote'. No explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisite context is provided, leaving usage ambiguous.

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