get_dex_quotes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: this is a paid call (0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base) and it returns a single aggregate route without independent venue comparison, which shapes both cost expectations and result interpretation.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, what it does not do, and what it costs. Nothing is padded and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state the return shape (expected output plus route components) and the payment requirement. It leaves unsupported-pair failure behavior and any rate/latency expectations unstated, but covers enough for correct invocation.

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 from/to/chain/amount are already documented with formats and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'supported pair', so the 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 concrete verb+resource: fetch one live ParaSwap aggregate route for a supported token pair, and scopes it with 'no independent venue comparison'. That scope line separates it from a hypothetical multi-venue router, though no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a supported pair' and the per-call cost, which helps an agent weigh whether the call is worth making. There is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like get_crypto_prices, and no stated when-not or prerequisites.

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