get_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the quote includes a 2% fee and expected output, which are behavioral traits. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether the quote is binding, or any additional behavior beyond those mentioned. It provides some transparency but not full clarity.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys all essential info without waste. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool with a generic schema and no output schema, the description provides a solid understanding of what it does and what it returns (route, expected out, fee). It could elaborate on the output structure or whether it's a simulation, but given the moderate complexity, it's fairly complete.

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?

The schema is generic with an args object and zero coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly names inputMint, outputMint, and amount in base units, adding meaning to the parameters. However, it doesn't specify exact field names or structure for the nested object, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool gets a swap quote, specifying the route, expected out, fee, and inputs (inputMint, outputMint, amount). It distinguishes from siblings like build_swap and submit_swap by focusing on the quoting phase of a swap.

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 this is used before executing a swap (getting a quote), but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like build_swap or submit_swap, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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