cpu_quote_swap

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

The description states 'no side effects — no approval, no transaction.' This is explicit about the tool's behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers the behavioral traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, usage advice. No wasted words.

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 or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns (expected output and minimum), safety, and relation to sibling tool. It could be more specific about the return format, but it's adequate.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that the output is 'already net of the pool fee' and that 'slippage' defines the minimum received. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Preview' and the resource 'ETH↔$CPU swap'. It specifies that it returns expected output and minimum after slippage, and explicitly distinguishes from 'cpu_swap' by noting no side effects.

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 explicitly says 'Use it before cpu_swap to size the trade.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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