build_trade_payload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a side-effect-free computation. The description adds that the output is an encrypted computedData payload composed from credentials, but is silent on secret handling and on how the payload is subsequently consumed. Note: 'raw credentials' sits in mild tension with the accountRef schema note that no secret is passed in chat, though this is a schema annotation, not an annotation contradiction.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and the output artifact front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-line builder, though a brief pointer to the next step could have been added without bloat.

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 an 8-parameter builder with no output schema, the description should explain what the computedData payload is and how to use it (e.g., feed it into an execute tool). It names the artifact but leaves its shape and downstream usage unspecified, which is a meaningful gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 all 8 parameters (action enum, nonce, amount, tokenAddress, apiKey, accountRef, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (Build) and a specific resource (an encrypted managed-custody trade computedData payload) plus the input nature (raw credentials). An agent can distinguish it from execution siblings like gdex_execute_trade, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the likely downstream step (executing the payload) or of alternatives such as gdex_execute_trade. The builder-vs-executor relationship is left entirely to inference.

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