orbs_submit_signed_swap

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a state-changing operation. The description adds the nuance that the swap is externally signed, which affects the signing workflow, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like gas requirements, failure modes, or post-submission effects. This is moderate added value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Submit') and then states the object and prerequisite. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and efficiently structured.

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?

The description is sparse for a complex operation. It references the quote from orbs_prepare_swap_intent and the external signing, but omits important workflow steps (e.g., how to obtain the signature, what happens after submission, potential return values). With no output schema, the agent is left without explicit information about expected results. The annotations and schema fill some gaps, but overall the description alone is not fully complete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by linking the 'quote' parameter to its source (orbs_prepare_swap_intent), clarifying the expected origin and format beyond the schema's generic 'Quote object from orbs_get_quote'. It also implicitly connects the 'signature' parameter to the external signing context. This extra context earns a 4.

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 the tool's function: 'Submit an externally signed Orbs Liquidity Hub swap using the quote returned by orbs_prepare_swap_intent.' It uses a specific verb ('Submit'), identifies the resource ('externally signed Orbs Liquidity Hub swap'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the prerequisite quote from a specific tool.

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 provides clear workflow context by specifying the quote must come from orbs_prepare_swap_intent, implying a preceding step. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use orbs_swap instead), but the 'externally signed' phrase hints at the distinction. Overall, it gives enough context for an agent to understand the typical usage flow.

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