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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: custodial at the venue during the swap, blueDEX never holds funds, and the flow of sending from asset to deposit address. It also mentions the refundAddress parameter's purpose. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds valuable context about the custodial nature and settlement flow.

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 and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the flow explanation and a pointer to list_instant_assets. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the flow, custodial behavior, and where to find asset ids. It lacks an explicit output schema, but the description explains the return value (deposit address). Minor gap: no mention of timeouts or failure handling beyond refundAddress, but overall complete for an agent to invoke 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the deposit address flow and refundAddress purpose, but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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 the tool's purpose: opening an instant shift for assets without an on-chain DEX route, with specific examples (Tron, BTC, cross-chain). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning the instant shift mechanism and the deposit address flow, which differentiates it from build_swap_transaction and plan_route.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for assets with no on-chain DEX route) and mentions using list_instant_assets for ids. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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