get_swap_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns expected output amount, rate, and fees, which implies a read-only quote. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not execute the swap or whether the quote is indicative/expiring, which are important behavioral traits. It provides some transparency but not full.

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 and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and immediately lists the key returned data. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions the return values, which is essential. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify how this relates to the sibling 'get_clob_swap_quote' and whether the quote is firm or indicative, but these are not critical gaps for a basic quote tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on how the parameters interact or provide contextual usage examples. The schema already thoroughly describes each parameter, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 purpose: 'Get a price quote for swapping between two tokens' with specific outputs (expected output amount, rate, fees). It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_clob_swap_quote', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_clob_swap_quote' or 'prepare_swap'. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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