quote_sizes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it calls Jupiter, requires no API key, and requires the mint to come from list_tokens. It does not detail rate limits or exact response fields, but it adds value beyond the annotations.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output concept. The auth note and mint-source prerequisite are brief and each earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the key return concept — how much more each size pays per token than the smallest, i.e. slippage. It also covers auth and input prerequisites, though it does not specify exact response fields or error behavior.

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 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented mint parameter by explicitly stating it must come from list_tokens. It also contextualizes sizes as USDC amounts used for slippage comparison, while the schema itself supplies the limit and defaults for sizes.

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 states a specific verb and resource — quoting token purchases at several USDC sizes through Jupiter — and clarifies the output concept: per-token payout differences versus the smallest size (slippage). Referencing list_tokens as the source of the mint also helps distinguish this tool from the sibling token-listing 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?

It gives useful prerequisites — no API key needed and the mint must come from list_tokens — which implies when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus compare_issuers, nor does it describe exclusions or alternative tools for related comparison tasks.

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