swap_aggregate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior (split routes, estimated output), and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only quote, but it never explicitly confirms execution does not occur, nor mentions permissions, rate limits, or freshness of the quote.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the return behavior follows immediately, fitting the description to the tool's scope.

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?

For a 5-parameter quote tool with a nested output-token object and no output schema, the description names the key return concepts (split routes, estimated amount) and the DEX-spanning scope. The main remaining gap is usage/sequencing guidance, which is captured under a separate dimension.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the native token format, slippage bounds, and blacklisted_dexes examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated swap data for a token pair across Cardano DEXes') and clarifies the output as optimal split routes plus estimated amount. This distinguishes it functionally from execution siblings like submit_swap and swap_build_cbor, though it never explicitly names them.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Given siblings submit_swap and swap_build_cbor exist, the description should clarify this is a quote/aggregation step rather than an execution, but leaves the agent to infer that from 'Get' alone.

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