obol_swap_quote

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

The description discloses a $0.005 USDC cost, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for other behavioral aspects. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or any operational constraints beyond the fee. The cost disclosure earns it a 3 rather than a 2.

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 two short sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose ('Get a Jupiter swap quote with route planning and price impact') and then the cost. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description does not explain the structure of the returned quote, nor does it mention the relationship to obol_swap_execute (the obvious next step) or any preconditions like wallet balance or expiration. It is minimal for a tool that likely feeds into a swap execution flow, leaving critical context for an agent implicit.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema, including examples for atomic units and mint addresses. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets a Jupiter swap quote with route planning and price impact, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It doesn't explicitly mention obol_swap_execute as the sibling for execution, but its purpose is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from the wallet and token tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obol_swap_execute. The description only states what it does and its cost, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used to fetch a quote before executing a swap. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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