Relay Protocol MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a quote tool (not an execution tool), requires token contract addresses (not symbols), and specifies amount formatting conventions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical usage guidelines, practical examples, and formatting rules. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides key usage rules, the examples demonstrate parameter usage, and the final sections clarify formatting requirements.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering usage context, parameter semantics, and examples. The main gap is the lack of information about what the quote output contains (since there's no output schema), but given the tool's purpose and the detailed input guidance, this is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples with specific parameter values, clarifying token format requirements ('Always use contract addresses'), and explaining amount formatting conventions. This practical guidance helps users understand how to properly format inputs.

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 an executable quote for bridging tokens between chains or swapping within a chain.' It specifies the exact action (get quote) and resource (tokens), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like relay_get_currencies (which finds token addresses) and relay_swap_multi_input (which likely executes swaps).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Always use TOKEN CONTRACT ADDRESSES, not symbols. Use relay_get_currencies to find token addresses.' It names a specific alternative tool (relay_get_currencies) for token address lookup, clearly delineating responsibilities between tools.

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