Get a RAVN swap quote

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

The description states it is free and requires no API key, adding useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also explicitly says it returns a quoteToken and directs the user to ravn_execute, making the behavior and next steps transparent. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 concise, one sentence with a clear structure. It front-loads the primary action (get a swap quote), then provides key attributes (cross-chain, 16 chains, native Bitcoin/Solana, free), and ends with the output and follow-up step. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the tool's role, what it returns (a quoteToken), and how to use that output with ravn_execute. It does not describe the quote structure or error cases, but that information is not necessary for basic invocation since parameters are fully documented. The description covers the essential context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add additional parameter-level clarifications beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the overall purpose but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: obtaining a swap quote from RAVN, including same-chain and cross-chain across 16 chains. It specifies the resource (RAVN), the action (get a quote), and the scope, and it distinguishes itself from ravn_execute by explaining that the returned quoteToken is passed to ravn_execute for execution.

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 the usage pattern: call this tool to get a quote, then pass the quoteToken to ravn_execute. It also notes that no API key is required, which is a practical prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like ravn_health or when not to use this tool, but the main flow is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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