x402_submit

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by disclosing a $0.005 USDC fee, the requirement for signed input, and waiting up to 8 rounds for confirmation. It doesn't cover failure behavior or irreversibility, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the fee and core action, the second gives usage order. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 single-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key workflow: signed input, cost, and confirmation wait. It omits the return value/confirmation shape, but the essential context is present.

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 schema already fully describes txnsB64 as 'base64-encoded SIGNED transactions of one atomic group (<=16), in group order,' and the description adds little beyond emphasizing the signed state. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 states a specific action ('submit a SIGNED atomic group to Algorand mainnet') and clearly differentiates this tool from sibling x402 tools, which are about staking, farming, P2P, and catalog operations. The paid nature and confirmation wait are also valuable purpose-relevant details.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use after signing the unsigned group returned by a build tool.' This provides clear sequencing and context. It doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough for a submit tool.

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