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

The description says 'List,' which implies a read-only operation, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not add any behavioral context that reconciles this conflict, and annotations themselves are misleading. Score 1 per contradiction rule.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses concise notation (→) to reference an alternative. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague language.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a contradictory annotation set, the description is too thin. It omits return format, error handling, or authentication context (though mcp_token schema partially covers auth). The contradiction further undermines completeness, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's actual safety profile.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., mcp_token required, chain ID semantics, pagination defaults). The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 a specific verb (List) and resource (swap/bridge order history), includes pagination and scope (single-chain and cross-chain), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tx_list by explicitly pointing to it for transfer history. This makes the purpose 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 provides a clear alternative via '→ tx_list for transfer history,' which helps an agent decide when to use this tool versus a sibling. It does not offer explicit exclusions (e.g., when NOT to use), but the pointer to tx_list is practical and sufficient for basic differentiation.

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