Find a swap route on Ref Finance for token exchange by providing source token, destination token, and amount. The tool evaluates available routes to reduce costs and slippage.
Find the optimal swap route on Ref Finance for token exchange
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount to swap (in token decimals) | |
| to_token | Yes | Token to swap to | |
| from_token | Yes | Token to swap from (e.g., "wrap.near", "usdt.tether-token.near") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'find' suggests a read-only route lookup rather than an execution, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose whether the tool executes swaps, what data it queries, or what 'optimal' is based on. These gaps matter without annotations to clarify safety behavior.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Find the optimal swap route') and adds the platform and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple three-parameter tool, the description is enough to understand the basic operation and invoke it. However, there is no output schema and no mention of the return shape, route structure, or meaning of 'optimal,' so an agent may still be uncertain about what the tool actually returns.
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 the schema already documents the three required parameters adequately. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, such as amount formatting or token address conventions, so it provides no value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('optimal swap route on Ref Finance') with a clear purpose ('token exchange'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which focus on yields, staking, lending, and impermanent loss. However, it does not define what 'optimal' means, so the precision is slightly limited.
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 intended use is implied by 'for token exchange' — the tool should be used when an agent needs a swap route on Ref Finance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some room for interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.