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 discloses the return payload (verdict with ALLOW/CAUTION/DANGER/BLOCK, reason codes, oracle evidence, signed attestation) and the important caveat that ALLOW is not principal authorization. It does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it records evidence, or what its cost or rate limits are.

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 text is front-loaded with purpose, then timing, exclusions, and the return shape. Four dense sentences all earn their place, though the laundry list of venues and chains in sentence one is slightly heavy.

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?

This is a complex, 32-parameter, polymorphic tool with nested objects and no output schema, and the description does cover the return values and the pre-trade gate's role. However, because it does not map the `action` values to the required parameter subsets (position, order, borrows, collaterals, market/side), an agent must infer this from the schema alone.

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 56%, so half the parameters rely on the description. The description adds real meaning only for `guard` (a family-native exact-call payload) and `mode`, and it does not explain which parameters each `action` enum value requires. That mapping is the main thing an agent needs, yet it is missing, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a pre-trade oracle safety gate. It names the covered action families (swaps, lending, perps, vault deposits, stress tests) and the chains (Base, Monad, EVM, Solana, Hyperliquid), which is enough for an agent to tell it apart from sibling tools such as get_oracle_price or prepare_swap.

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?

It gives explicit timing ('immediately before an agent trades or signs'), an explicit exclusion ('do not use it after execution'), names the alternative to use instead (issue_execution_receipt), and warns that its ALLOW result is not principal authorization.

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