Submit a signed CoW order (from cow_build_order) to the CoW Protocol order book; returns orderUid + explorer link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| order | Yes | the `order` object from cow_build_order, unchanged | |
| sender | Yes | ||
| quoteId | No | ||
| signature | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| explorer | Yes | ||
| orderUid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "explorer": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "orderUid": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "orderUid",
+ "explorer",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool submits to an order book and returns orderUid plus an explorer link, but it does not describe permission requirements, irreversibility, idempotency, or failure behavior for this write operation.
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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, prerequisite source, target system, and return values efficiently.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail beyond its brief summary. However, given five parameters, only 20% schema coverage, nested object input, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unsaid about the required inputs and mutation 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 description coverage is only 20%, and the description only adds meaning for the order parameter by saying it comes unchanged from cow_build_order. It does not explain chain, sender, signature, or the optional quoteId, so it does not compensate for the sparse schema documentation.
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: submit a signed CoW order to the CoW Protocol order book. It also identifies the workflow source, cow_build_order, and names the return values, making the tool distinct from sibling quote/build/status tools.
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 phrase 'from cow_build_order' clearly tells the agent this is the submission step after building an order, which is useful workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as cow_order_status, so it falls short of a 5.
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.