Create 8DX Limit Order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical behavioral trait: the tool expects an already signed payload and does not perform signing. This is valuable and not obvious from the tool name. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as return format, transaction costs, or wallet connection requirements, so it is not fully transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and immediately clarify the key prerequisite. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is relatively minimal. It covers the essential prerequisite (signed payload) but does not explain what happens after submission, expected return values, or how to obtain the required signature. The schema fills in many parameter details, so it is not completely inadequate, but there are clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The description itself provides no parameter-level guidance. The input schema has a moderate 71% description coverage, with many fields documented, but some nested objects like 'makerTraits' are only vaguely described as 'produced by the 8DX limit-order signing flow.' The tool description does not compensate for these gaps, so the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('submits an already signed 8DX limit order payload') and clearly identifies the resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from signature-creating tools by saying 'This tool does not create signatures,' making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings like eightdx_create_swap or signing tools.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have an already signed order. It also provides a when-not-to-use by stating it does not create signatures, which implicitly excludes this tool for signing tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe the full workflow (e.g., signing tools to use first), so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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