orbs_prepare_order_intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact return artifacts and the fact that it prepares rather than executes. It does not contradict annotations, and 'prepare' aligns with the read-only hint.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. No fluff or redundant content.

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 tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return payload and order-type coverage. However, it does not explicitly mention the subsequent submission step (e.g., via the returned submit URL or orbs_submit_signed_order), which would be helpful for full contextual completeness.

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%, with all 14 parameters individually described. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 a specific action (prepare a Spot order), the context (external wallet signing), and the deliverables (EIP-712 typed data, approval calldata, submit URL, order metadata). The phrase 'Supports all order types' distinguishes it from specialized sibling tools like orbs_prepare_twap_intent and orbs_prepare_limit_intent.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for external wallet signing' and the listed return artifacts, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like orbs_prepare_swap_intent or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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