quote_mev_cover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly conveys the tool is a modeled estimate (non-binding, read-only) and not a live commitment. It mentions return outputs but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Since it's a quote tool with no destructive potential, the description is reasonably transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first states what the tool does and what it returns. The second clarifies its non-binding nature. Every word is essential; no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (premium, loss, conditions). It contextualizes the tool as pre-trade decision support and clarifies it is not a live offer. For a quote tool with 7 parameters, it is mostly complete, though it could elaborate on how parameters influence the model.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add semantic value beyond the schema; it summarizes the output but not the parameters. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 it provides a modeled premium estimate for MEV-sandwich exposure on a swap, listing specific outputs (premium in bps + USD, expected/CVaR loss, conditions). It distinguishes itself from live cover or insurance, and the sibling tools (e.g., check_swap, quote_bridge_refund) confirm it occupies a distinct niche as a point-in-time decision support tool.

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 specifies it is 'point-in-time decision support before routing a trade' and explicitly states it is 'not a live cover, insurance, or premium-acceptance offer.' This gives clear context for when to use or not use the tool, though it does not directly contrast with related sibling tools like check_swap or quote_bridge_refund.

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