get_swap_quote

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It details that the tool returns execution steps with ready-to-sign transaction data and a relay.link deep link. It explains amount units and chain ID formats. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, though the name 'get' implies no mutation.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, return value explanation, and parameter details. It front-loads the core purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, the content is valuable and each sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more concise but is appropriate for the complexity.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides thorough context: it explains the return format (execution steps, deep link), parameter formats (amounts, chain IDs, token addresses), trade type options, and alternative flows (useDepositAddress). It also distinguishes from sibling tools. The description is nearly complete for an AI agent 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds value beyond the schema. It explains tradeType semantics in depth (EXACT_INPUT, EXPECTED_OUTPUT, EXACT_OUTPUT), provides examples for native token addresses across different blockchains, and clarifies amount units with concrete examples. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: to get a quote for swapping between DIFFERENT tokens, same-chain or cross-chain. It provides examples (ETH to USDC on Base, cross-chain) and explicitly distinguishes from get_bridge_quote for same-token bridging.

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 explicit 'when to use' (different tokens) and 'when not to use' (same-token bridging, for which it recommends get_bridge_quote). This provides clear context for the AI agent to select the appropriate tool.

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