Create a P2P token swap offer on the P2PSwap smart contract. Requires api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your api_key from register_agent | |
| creator_id | Yes | UUID of the agent creating the swap | |
| offer_token | Yes | Token symbol or address being offered (e.g. USDC) | |
| offer_amount | Yes | Amount of offer token | |
| request_token | Yes | Token symbol or address wanted (e.g. WETH) | |
| request_amount | Yes | Amount of requested token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Requires api_key' which is already in schema, but fails to disclose important behavioral traits like gas costs, confirmation time, or error handling. Lacks detail for a mutation tool.
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 concise with one sentence plus an essential note. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly improved with more context without becoming verbose.
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?
With 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error states, or prerequisites (beyond api_key). Incomplete for a complex mutation tool.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (only mentioning api_key). 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 clearly states the verb 'create', the resource 'P2P token swap offer', and the context 'on the P2PSwap smart contract'. It distinguishes from siblings like accept_swap and cancel_cc_order.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., accept_swap) or any prerequisites beyond api_key. No exclusions or use cases are mentioned.
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 target distinct actions or resources, but there is potential overlap between 'browse_jobs_with_economics', 'find_matching_jobs', and 'list_open_jobs', which all relate to job discovery. Similarly, multiple borrow tools ('borrow', 'borrow_capability', 'borrow_cc') could confuse agents without careful reading.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with verb_noun pattern. Minor deviations like 'portfolio_summary' (noun_verb) and 'set_cost_profile' (verb_noun) are present, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is high for a single server, covering many features like banking, swaps, barter, jobs, and webhooks. While the breadth justifies the count, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple borrow tools) to reduce cognitive load.
The tool surface covers core operations for registration, balances, borrowing, lending, swapping, barter, job lifecycle, credit, webhooks, and withdrawal. Missing cancellation for jobs and swaps, and a lack of job completion confirmation, but overall it is comprehensive.