submit_signed_orderNo version argument: every order runs on the v4 backend. Relay an order the user already signed (quoteId + signature from prepare_order's PreparedOrder). State-changing: this posts the order. The server never signs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quoteId | Yes | quoteId (the newQuoteId returned by prepare_order). | |
| signature | Yes | The user's EIP-712 signature (0x...). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is state-changing, posts the order, runs on v4, and the server never signs. No contradiction exists.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the backend constraint, the required inputs and source, and the state-changing nature. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description plus schema gives enough to call it correctly: where inputs come from, that it is a write operation, and that the server does not sign. There is no output schema, but that is not a blocker for calling the tool correctly.
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%, with both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that quoteId and signature come from prepare_order's PreparedOrder but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('relay'/'submit') and resource ('an order the user already signed') and clearly distinguishes itself from prepare_order by stating it operates on a signed order with quoteId + signature from prepare_order's PreparedOrder. It also clarifies the backend version, making its scope unmistakable.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: after prepare_order, with an already-signed user order, and states that the server never signs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the contrast with prepare_order and the emphasis on user-signed orders provides sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set is organized into clear read/prepare/action families, and cross-references like get_user_positions vs get_user_summary or get_markets vs get_reserve_details keep purposes distinct. A couple of generic names—prepare_action vs prepare_order, preview_action vs prepare_action—could cause misselection, but the descriptions explicitly separate them.
Names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for reads, prepare_* for transaction builders, plus cancel_order and submit_signed_order. The pattern is consistent overall, though a few generic exceptions like get_started, get_aave_guide, and preview_action break the strict resource-noun convention.
With 40 tools, the set is well past the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even though the domain is broad. Most tools are distinct and justified, but an agent must navigate a very large list, and the server could reasonably be split into protocol, governance, and swap/order surfaces.
The surface covers v3/v4 reads, positions, health factors, simulations, transaction building, collateral, eMode, liquidation, rewards, sGHO, swaps/orders, and governance proposal reads, with clear sequencing between preview, prepare, and submit. Minor gaps exist—governance has no voting transaction and stkGHO balance/cooldown state is not readable—but they do not block the core Aave workflows.