get_solana_swap_quote

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and safe. The description adds details on the Jupiter API call, return structure (opaque quoteResponse plus human fields), auto-wrapping/unwrapping for SOL, and error behavior when no route exists, going well 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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and core purpose. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Well-organized, easy to parse.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to use parameters, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. No gaps remain.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete examples (e.g., '1000000' for 1 USDC), explains the native SOL mint convention, and gives common DEX names and usage patterns for the dexes parameter. This additional context justifies a 4 rather than a 5 because the schema already does much of the work.

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?

Clearly states it fetches a Jupiter v6 swap quote for previewing route, expected output, slippage, and price impact. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_swap_quote' (EVM) and 'prepare_solana_swap' by naming the aggregator and usage purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'READ-ONLY' and to use before committing to a transaction. Mentions the quoteResponse must be passed verbatim to 'prepare_solana_swap', provides guidance on native SOL mint handling, DEX filtering, and error recovery ('agent should offer to retry without filter').

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