defi_swap_quote

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the aggregators queried, the $0.05 USDC cost, the exact calldata fields returned, and the supported chains. It does not mention slippage, latency, or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and output, with no filler. The parenthetical pricing and chain list are compact. Slightly packed but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields (to, data, value, gasLimit), which is the key information an agent needs. Cost and supported chains are also covered. Missing only secondary details like slippage handling or the difference between quoting and executing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including defaults for from_chain/to_chain and enum values. The description adds only the chain list, which duplicates the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Executable DeFi Swap & Cross-Chain Bridge Action Calldata Builder') and names the mechanism (LI.FI and ParaSwap aggregators) plus the exact output payload (to, data, value, gasLimit). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only data siblings like defi_yields or token_alpha.

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 'Action Calldata Builder' framing implies this is the execution-prep step rather than a data lookup, and the named chains give context. However, it never states when to use this versus other DeFi siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied, not specified.

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