orbs_submit_signed_order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a state-changing operation. The description adds that the order must be externally signed and that inputs come from the prepare step, providing useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or what happens after submission, which would add further transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides the key source of inputs. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning its place perfectly.

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 3-parameter action with no output schema, the description conveys the essential usage (pre-requisite prepare step, external signature) but lacks information about the response, follow-up actions (e.g., checking order status via orbs_swap_status), or any post-submission behavior. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for a complex financial action.

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%, giving basic descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds cross-tool context by stating that submitUrl and order come from orbs_prepare_order_intent, which clarifies their origin and relationship beyond the raw schema. It does not add details about the signature parameter, but the schema already explains it adequately.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'externally signed Spot order', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like orbs_place_order or orbs_submit_signed_swap by mentioning the external signature and the specific prepare step. It effectively identifies the tool's unique role in the order lifecycle.

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 indicates this tool is used after orbs_prepare_order_intent, giving clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when not to use it (e.g., if the order is not externally signed), so it falls slightly short of full usage guidance.

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