get_best_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (finding a route) but doesn't explicitly state that no swap is executed, nor does it explain return format, fees, slippage, or network limitations. The short description leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the core function. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose, so it's concise but slightly under-specified.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand tool behavior. It doesn't mention whether the result includes execution steps, price impact, or gas estimates, nor whether it executes the swap. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context.

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 100%, and the schema already describes all parameters (token addresses, amount in smallest unit, network). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, but it does align with the schema by implying swapping. 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 tool finds the optimal swap route across multiple DEXs, which conveys a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from execution tools by saying 'find' rather than 'execute'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_swap_quote or get_supported_dexs, so it's not fully distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention whether to use it for quotes, execution, or comparison, nor does it reference sibling tools like get_swap_quote or execute_swap. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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