Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_wallet_balanceA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default wallet behavior when walletAddress is omitted, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose return format, units (e.g., lamports vs SOL), error handling, or any side effects, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and includes the essential default-behavior caveat in a separate sentence, making it easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main function and the default wallet behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return value structure (e.g., whether both balances are returned together, or their units), which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in detail, including the default behavior for walletAddress. The description primarily paraphrases this information, adding no new semantic content beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify parameter constraints or value formats beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states the tool's function: 'Get the SOL balance (and optionally an SPL token balance) for a wallet address.' This clearly identifies the verb (Get), resource (balance), and scope (wallet address). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_token_overview or get_jupiter_quote, which serve different purposes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied by the tool name and description. The only usage guidance provided is the default wallet behavior when walletAddress is omitted ('defaults to the server's configured trading wallet when trading is enabled'), which helps with invocation but not tool selection among siblings.

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

• get_pairA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and suggests comprehensive output ('full detail'), but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any potential limitations. This is adequate for a simple get, but gaps remain.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get full detail for one specific DEX pair/pool by its pair address.' Every word contributes to conveying the action, object, and key qualifier, with no unnecessary information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Although the tool is simple, the description lacks context for correct selection among many sibling tools ('search_pairs', 'get_token_pairs', 'get_tokens'). It also does not explain what 'full detail' includes, and there is no output schema to provide that information. This creates ambiguity for an agent deciding when to use this tool over alternatives.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (pairId and chainId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('DEX pair/pool'), and scope ('one specific', 'by its pair address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_pairs and get_token_pairs by focusing on a single pair retrieval rather than searching or listing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage: when you have a known pair address and need full detail for that specific pair. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is clear that this is for retrieving a single pair, not for searching or comparing multiple pairs.

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

• get_token_pairsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sorting behavior (by 24h volume descending) but does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or behavior for invalid/unknown token addresses. It adds some behavioral context but is not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the purpose and key behavior without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise and well structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple list tool with a schema covering parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and the main behavior (volume sorting). It does not describe the return format explicitly, but that is implied by 'list all pools', which is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minor clarification by referring to 'token mint/contract address', which mirrors the schema. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all DEX pools/pairs for a given token mint/contract address'. It also adds a distinguishing detail ('sorted by 24h volume descending') that sets it apart from sibling tools like get_pair (likely a single pair) and search_pairs (search-based).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage: when you have a token address and want all its pools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., use get_pair for a specific pool). This is implied usage rather than clear guidance with exclusions.

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

• search_pairsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds the scope note and implies a read-only search, but does not disclose output format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. For a search tool, this is average but lacks depth.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The example and scope note are concise and valuable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, how to search, and scope. It lacks explicit output details, but the phrase 'trading pairs matching free text' implies the return type. Given no output schema, this is mostly complete with minor gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's example ('SOL/USDC') largely repeats what the schema already says. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool searches DEX Screener for trading pairs matching free text, with examples. It has a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('DEX Screener for trading pairs'), and a useful scope note ('Not scoped to one chain'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pair or get_token_pairs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides clear context for when to use (searching by free text, e.g. token symbol or pair) and a scope note. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

• get_token_profilesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description relies on the verb 'list' to signal a read-only operation. It adds the chain filter behavior but omits details like pagination, result limits, or output format, which are relevant for a listing tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, striking a good balance between completeness and brevity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  While adequate for a simple list tool, the lack of an output schema and any mention of result size or return shape leaves a gap. The description does not fully compensate for the missing annotations and output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already provides a clear description and example for chainFilter, and the tool description reinforces its optional nature. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema states.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('latest trending/boosted token profiles') and source ('from DEX Screener'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_tokens or get_token_overview. The optional chain filter adds precision.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'trending/boosted' implies a discovery use case, and the optional chain filter gives context for when one might use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

• get_swap_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a useful behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. However, it does not describe what the confirmation status looks like (e.g., pending/confirmed/failed) or any error behavior, leaving a notable gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds only the most relevant extra context (example and read-only hint).

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, example input source, and safety indicator. It falls just short of a 5 because it omits what the response contains (e.g., status values).

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already fully describes the signature parameter (coverage 100%). The description adds the example 'one returned by execute_swap', which helps clarify where to obtain the signature but does not significantly extend the schema's meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('confirmation status of a previously-submitted transaction signature'). It also provides a concrete example ('one returned by execute_swap') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_swap and ping.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the tool should be used after a transaction is submitted (e.g., from execute_swap), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The example gives clear contextual guidance, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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

• pingA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return payload (pong plus server time) and clearly labels the tool as a read-only health check, which is adequate for a zero-parameter ping tool. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no state changes, but that is strongly implied.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and implies its safe, read-only nature. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The description correctly mentions no inputs, so nothing more is needed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly identifies the tool as a health check that returns pong plus the current server time. This is specific and distinguishes it from the surrounding crypto/financial sibling tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of it being a preliminary connectivity check, and no exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the term 'health check.'

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

• get_token_overviewA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses graceful degradation when either the DEX Screener listing or Jupiter route is missing, which is a key edge-case behavior. For a read-only aggregation tool, this covers the most important operational trait.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two focused sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including the critical fallback behavior without wasted words. Every clause adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description sufficiently explains the data sources, composition, and fallback behavior for a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema. It does not specify the response shape, but for selection and invocation the description is adequate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already documents both chainId and tokenAddress with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add deeper parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'Combines' and names two concrete data sources (DEX Screener market data and Jupiter quote) plus included fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_jupiter_quote or get_token_pairs. The tool's scope is unmistakable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a merged market-data-plus-quote overview in one call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the composition statement provides sufficient context for appropriate selection.

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

• get_jupiter_quoteA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It explicitly states read-only behavior, no execution, and that amounts are in the input mint's smallest unit, which are critical behavioral details.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences, each adding essential value: purpose, safety/units, and relationship to execute_swap. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers purpose, safety, and integration with execute_swap, which is sufficient for a simple quote tool. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the quote object's structure, leaving a minor gap for an agent expecting to consume the result programmatically.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 all parameters. The description's mention of units repeats schema content, adding no new semantic information. Baseline of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves a live Jupiter swap quote, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling execute_swap by explicitly noting it is read-only and executes nothing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool, noting it is a prerequisite for execute_swap and emphasizing no wallet is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the relationship to execute_swap implies the appropriate usage.

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

• get_tokensA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the batch limit ('up to 30') and the return type ('DEX pair data'). It does not mention error handling or partial failures, but for a read-only lookup, this is adequate context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and batch capability, then a usage hint. Every word earns its place – no fluff or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple batch lookup tool with full schema coverage, the description provides the use case, alternative, and key constraint. It does not detail edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid addresses), but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% (both chainId and tokenAddresses have descriptions). The description reinforces the max-30 limit but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description states 'Look up DEX pair data for up to 30 token addresses in a single call' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_token_pairs by emphasizing the batch aspect.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use this instead of repeated get_token_pairs calls when checking a list of tokens', giving a clear alternative and a concrete when-to-use condition. This is strong guidance for an agent.

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

• execute_swapA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a real, irreversible swap, subject to server-side caps on amount, slippage, and quote freshness, and that it can return a structured refusal. This exceeds typical transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'REAL on-chain swap' warning. Every sentence adds essential information: prerequisites, caps, and disabled-state behavior. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  High-risk tool with no annotations or output schema. Description covers prerequisites, safety, caps, and disabled behavior, but does not specify what the success response looks like or how to retrieve swap status. Sibling get_swap_status exists, but the description doesn't point to it.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema covers all 3 params (100%), baseline 3. Description adds meaning: quote must be unmodified and previously obtained, confirm:true is required, and server-side caps enforce quote freshness. It doesn't deeply explain quoteFetchedAt but the schema already does.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Executes a REAL on-chain swap' using a prior quote. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_jupiter_quote (which only fetches quotes) by emphasizing execution of an on-chain transaction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states prerequisites: a quote from get_jupiter_quote or get_token_overview, confirm:true, and TRADING_ENABLED=true. It also notes that the tool is always listed but returns a structured refusal when trading is disabled, guiding appropriate use.

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