Swap any two tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses the real transaction nature, the $0.01 USDG cost, the step-based response for approvals, and the dependency on the broadcast tool. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost, approval workflow, and next step. Information is front-loaded and there is zero redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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 explains the core workflow (construct, approve if needed, broadcast), cost, and token flexibility. Given the absence of an output schema, it adequately describes what the tool returns (steps). It could be more explicit about the structure of steps or failure modes, but it is sufficient for the task.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that any ERC20 address works (no allowlist), that amount is a decimal string, and that approval steps may be returned. This enhances understanding of how parameters behave in context.

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 constructs a real Uniswap V3 swap transaction between any two tokens. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like price/quote (which likely just quote) and broadcast (which actually signs/sends). The explicit mention of 'pass the result to the broadcast tool' further clarifies its role.

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 gives clear usage context: any two tokens, no allowlist, and the workflow of passing results to broadcast. It implies when to use (for swaps) and how to handle outputs with steps. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like quote/price for price checks, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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