gdex_operation

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: the call blocks up to waitSec, it deliberately looks up the trade instead of resending when a submission is unknown, and it surfaces needs_retry rather than performing the sell itself. This is exactly the kind of disambiguation that prevents an agent from double-submitting, and nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the primary action, then layers the recovery semantics compactly in a single dense sentence plus a closing fallback clause. The nested parentheticals make it slightly hard to scan, but no clause is 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 stateful polling/reconciliation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering semantics, the description covers both modes, the waiting behavior, and the notable terminal states (funded/filled, submission_unknown, needs_retry). It could still say more about what the listing mode returns, but the critical call-time information 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?

opId has no schema description, and the description compensates by explaining its dual role: with it the call follows/reconciles a specific operation, without it the call lists recent operations. waitSec and accountRef are already documented in the schema at 67% coverage, so the remaining gap is small.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('follow or recover an operation by opId') plus the alternate listing mode when opId is omitted, so the two shapes of the call are distinguishable. It does not, however, contrast itself with the many similar polling siblings (wait_for_trade, usdc_wait_for_trade, managed_trade_status), and the bare name gdex_operation carries no meaning on its own.

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?

Gives concrete selection context: use it to follow funding/fill progress, to resolve a submission_unknown result, or to detect a needs_retry state, and use it without opId to list recent operations. It stops short of telling the agent when another polling tool (e.g. wait_for_trade) is the better choice.

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