swap_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies hard limits ($0.10 max, 60s cooldown, $5/day), a dedicated trade wallet, and automatic guardrails. This is strong but could mention what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash) or if it requires prior approvals.

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, both essential. First sentence states the core action, second lists constraints. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers platform, limits, and wallet details. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need approvals) and does not describe the return value or how to interpret results. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., max 0.10 is repeated). Baseline 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 purpose: 'Execute a token swap on Uniswap V3 (Base).' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like swap_quote (quote vs execution) and swap_status (status check).

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 mentions hard limits and guardrails, implying safe usage, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after obtaining a quote from swap_quote). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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