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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: paid per call via x402 on Base at $0.01-$0.05 USDC, a shared-reuse discount, and a bounded credit to the producing wallet. Gaps remain on failure semantics (what happens if execution is not 'clean') and idempotency, but the cost/payment/sharing disclosures go well beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and supported protocols, followed by a detail sentence and a payment sentence. It is dense but every clause carries information; the payment/reuse economics could be tightened slightly but are not filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, protocols, pricing, and shared-state seeding well. It does not describe the shape of the notarization result or what is returned when a trade fails the 'clean execution' certification, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it as a 'Completed transaction hash on Base mainnet.' The description reinforces the 'completed trade' constraint but adds no format, chain, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (notarize) applied to a specific resource (a completed DEX trade), names the supported venues (Uniswap V4, Aerodrome, Uniswap V3), and enumerates the concrete actions taken (audit receipt, decode deltas/pool state, certify clean execution, seed artifact). The 'completed trade' framing cleanly separates it from the sibling guard tools, which operate before execution.

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 'completed DEX trade' and 'on Base' scoping tells the agent clearly when this tool applies (post-swap notarization), and the pricing sentence implies reuse economics. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so routing against siblings like transaction_intent_guard is left to inference.

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