cpu_quote_swap

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: no side effects, no transaction, output is net of pool fee, and slippage is applied. This goes beyond a basic description and gives the agent critical safety information for a quote-only tool.

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?

Three tightly written sentences. Front-loaded with the core action and non-committal nature, then necessary details and usage pointer. No redundant words or repetition of schema fields.

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 no output schema, the description explains exactly what is returned (expected output and minimum after slippage) and the context (pre-swap sizing). The tool is a simple quote with 3 well-documented parameters, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the output is net of pool fee and that slippage determines the minimum received, connecting the parameter to its behavioral effect beyond just its type/default.

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 'Preview' and clarifies it's an ETH↔$CPU swap without committing, immediately distinguishing it from the actual `cpu_swap` tool. It clearly states the tool's function: returns expected output and minimum after slippage.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it before `cpu_swap` to size the trade. It also states what the tool does NOT do ('no approval, no transaction'), which sets clear expectations and guides the agent away from using it for execution.

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