execute_swapExecute a pre-signed swap transaction with automatic energy delegation. Get the unsigned TX from get_swap_quote, sign it, and submit here. Energy is delegated before broadcast. Works with API key (balance deduction) or x402 USDC payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txData | Yes | Pre-signed swap transaction from get_swap_quote |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals important behavioral traits: automatic energy delegation before broadcast, and two payment methods (API key balance deduction or x402 USDC). It doesn't cover failure modes, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and contextual.
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 sentences with high information density. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second covers workflow and payment. No filler or repetition.
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?
The description covers the key context: what to provide, where to get it, and payment mechanism. It doesn't describe return values or errors, but for an execution tool with a clear parameter schema and workflow, this is adequate. Sibling distinction could be stronger, but overall it's complete enough.
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 100% and the parameter description ('Pre-signed swap transaction from get_swap_quote') is helpful. The main description reinforces this by instructing to sign and submit the tx, adding practical meaning beyond the schema.
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 function: 'Execute a pre-signed swap transaction with automatic energy delegation.' It uses a specific verb (execute), a specific resource (pre-signed swap transaction), and distinguishes itself from sibling broadcast tools by focusing on swaps and energy delegation.
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?
Provides a clear workflow: 'Get the unsigned TX from get_swap_quote, sign it, and submit here.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after getting a quote) and implies the process. It also mentions payment options, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like broadcast_transaction.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.