thorchain_get_swap_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Get a quote' and does not explain the nature of the quote (e.g., whether it includes fees, slippage, price impact), whether it triggers any on-chain transactions, or whether it requires network connectivity or specific input formats. For a tool that presumably performs a read-only price estimate, this lack of behavior detail is a notable gap given zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero wasted text, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the main action. This is efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about what the quote response contains (e.g., expected amount, fees, expiry). The tool is relatively simple with only three fully documented parameters, so the description covers the core purpose but lacks details about return values or edge cases, making it minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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%, with each parameter (amount, toAsset, fromAsset) having a description and an example for assets. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies. The schema is clear enough, though the description doesn't clarify nuances like amount precision, decimal handling, or asset format validation.

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 states 'Get a quote for swapping assets on THORChain' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('swap quote on THORChain'), making the tool's function clear. It does distinguish it from generic swap quote tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_swap_quote', 'solana_get_swap_quote') by explicitly naming THORChain, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether a swap can be executed without a quote, or how this differs from similar tools like 'get_swap_quote' or 'execute_swap'. The only usage context is implicit from the tool name and description, but there are no explicit when/when-not or alternative references.

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