get_quotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: internal decimal conversion for human-readable amounts, default addresses derived from PRIVATE_KEY, and Markdown return format including error cases. These go beyond schema basics, though it omits permission requirements or side-effect statements.

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 detailed but efficiently structured: a one-line summary, then behavioral notes, then a parameter list, then a returns note. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the tool's complexity. 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 input semantics, defaults, output format, and error handling. It assumes valid chain keys and tokens come from sibling tools (list_chains/list_bridgeable_tokens), which is reasonable. The output schema (string) is addressed by noting Markdown formatting, so return value expectations are set without overspecifying.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with format, examples, and defaults: src_chain_key shows 'ethereum', src_amount is described as human-readable with example, and optional addresses include fallback behavior. This provides far more semantic meaning than the bare 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 opening sentence clearly states 'Fetch quotes for a cross-chain token bridge transfer using the Stargate API,' providing a specific verb (fetch), resource (quotes), and context (bridge transfer). This distinguishes it from siblings like bridge_transfer (execution) and list_chains (chain info), so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 implies usage as a pre-transfer step by describing retrieval of routes and quotes, but it never explicitly contrasts with bridge_transfer or states when not to use it. There is no guidance on alternatives, only implied context that this is the 'quote' stage before execution.

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