get_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: amounts are in atoms (uint256 decimal string), kind semantics for sell vs buy, return fields (sellAmount/buyAmount/feeAmount/validTo), and slippage instructions. It could explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but the 'Fetch' verb implies that. Overall, it provides substantial transparency.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences, each earning its place. It starts with the primary purpose, then covers units, kind, return values, and follow-up action (slippage). It is well-structured and sufficiently concise, though a minor reorganization could improve scannability.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return fields (sellAmount/buyAmount/feeAmount/validTo) and provides crucial contextual links: using chainId from list_chains and applying slippage before build_order. For a 7-parameter tool with 6 required, it covers all essential information an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that amounts are in atoms (uint256 decimal string), clarifies kind semantics ('kind='sell' the amount is the sell amount before fee; kind='buy' it is the desired buy amount'), and states that validForSeconds defaults to 1200. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Fetch a best-execution quote from the chain's Ophis orderbook'. It specifies the resource (quote) and context (Ophis orderbook), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing list_chains for chainId and build_order for subsequent steps.

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 explicit usage context: 'use a chainId from list_chains' and 'Before build_order, apply slippage...'. While it does not list when not to use this tool, it implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like list_chains and build_order, offering sufficient guidance for an agent.

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