orbs_prepare_twap_intent

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and open-world, and the description adds that it returns EIP-712 data and approval calldata, indicating no on-chain submission. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the tool's role in a signing workflow. However, it could disclose prerequisites like chain ID requirements or the need for an existing wallet.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key return types. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return categories, which is essential for the agent. It does not explain the subsequent signing or submission steps, but that is beyond the tool's direct scope. The required parameters are fully documented in the schema, making the description sufficient for a qualified agent.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool as preparing a TWAP order for external wallet signing, with specific return values (EIP-712 typed data, approval calldata, metadata). This distinguishes it from execution tools like orbs_place_twap and other prepare tools like orbs_prepare_swap_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?

The phrase 'for external wallet signing' provides clear context for when to use the tool: to generate signing data rather than execute a trade. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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