orbs_place_twap

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

Annotations already declare open-world and destructive hints, and the description adds 'Write, confirmation-gated,' which clarifies that this is a mutable operation requiring user confirmation. It also explains the splitting cadence, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 core purpose, and includes the essential mechanism and safety gate. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or repetition of schema details.

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 complex write operation, the description covers the core algorithm and safety (confirmation-gated), but it omits prerequisites such as token approvals or active wallet, and it does not describe the return value or post-order workflow. These gaps matter given there is no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning by explaining that fromAmount is split into equal chunks executed at regular intervals, which clarifies the interplay between fromAmount, chunks, and fillDelay beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 identifies the verb (Place), the resource (TWAP order via Spot protocol), and the mechanism (splits amount into equal chunks). This distinguishes it from sibling order types like 'orbs_place_limit' and 'orbs_place_order' by specifying the TWAP strategy.

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 implies use for time-weighted average price execution by describing the splitting behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'orbs_swap' or 'orbs_place_limit'. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools.

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