create_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool works for 'human traders, autonomous AI agents, and institutional counterparties' and involves 'verified counterparty' trading, which adds useful context about the user types and verification requirements. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this creates a pending transaction, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens upon execution failure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. However, the second sentence becomes somewhat redundant with the first, and the final usage guideline sentence could be more tightly integrated. Overall efficient but with minor structural improvements possible.

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 complex trading tool with 34 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks information about what happens after creation (e.g., does it return an intent ID? where is the intent stored? how is it executed?), which would be important for a creation tool with no output schema documentation.

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 description mentions key parameters like 'what you give, what you want, privacy level, KYC tier, and settlement terms,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage. However, with complete schema documentation already present, the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already in the structured fields.

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 purpose: 'Create a trading intent to swap, buy, sell, exchange, or convert any asset' with specific examples (crypto tokens, real-world assets, stablecoins) across multiple blockchains. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than committing, explaining, parsing, or validating intents.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this whenever a user wants to trade, swap, buy, sell, convert, or exchange any digital asset with a verified counterparty.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific sibling tools.

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