alpha_propose_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Propose a match,' which implies a transactional or write operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only proposal, requires authentication, involves on-chain transactions, or has side effects like escrow interactions. Critical behavioral traits like permissions, reversibility, or network implications are missing.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to grasp quickly. However, it could be slightly more structured by including key usage notes, but it avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., transaction ID, status), error conditions, or how it integrates with the broader Alpha Arcade system. For a tool that likely involves significant on-chain operations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between 'marketAppId' and 'makerEscrowAppId'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation 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 clearly states the action ('Propose a match') and identifies the resources involved ('existing maker order' and 'your wallet as taker'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'alpha_create_limit_order' or 'alpha_create_market_order', which might also involve order matching in different contexts.

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 minimal guidance, stating only that it's for proposing a match as a taker. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to propose vs. create an order directly), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing maker order or wallet setup. No explicit exclusions or context for usage is provided.

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