get_swap_quote

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 does not explicitly state that this is a read-only quote operation, that it does not execute swaps, or any potential caveats like price slippage or route selection behavior. The only behavioral addition over the name is the return field mention.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it efficiently scannable.

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 the core return values but does not mention other potential return fields (e.g., fees, route, min received) and lacks any indication of when the quote is valid or how it handles missing dex specification. Given there is no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about the complete response shape.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already declares for parameters like tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn, dex, and network.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'swap quote' and clarifies the context 'for exchanging tokens'. It explicitly states the return payload (expected output amount and price impact), which distinguishes it from execute_swap or get_best_route.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as execute_swap, get_best_route, or chain-specific swap quote tools. The description only states what the tool does, without any context on selection or exclusions.

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