sol_swap

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the transaction is unsigned (non-executing), non-custodial, and includes a 0.3% routing fee. These complement the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) without contradiction.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and key constraints, earning every word.

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 complexity of a swap transaction and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: output format, custody, fee, and destination. Minor omissions like user balance prerequisites or slippage context are implicit from the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter details beyond the schema, but adds context about the output format and fee, which indirectly aids understanding. No significant additional parameter meaning.

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 action ('Build a NON-CUSTODIAL Solana DEX swap via Jupiter'), output ('unsignED base64 transaction'), and key constraints (user signs, server never touches funds). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like evm_swap and sol_swap_quote.

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 implies usage for executing swaps in a non-custodial manner, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like sol_swap_quote (for quoting) or evm_swap (for other chains). No clear when-not-to-use criteria.

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