validate_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 states the tool 'catches missing fields, invalid token amounts, chain mismatches, and business rule violations,' which gives some behavioral context (e.g., it performs validation checks). However, it doesn't describe the response format, error handling, or what happens on success/failure, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a validation tool.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (validation with business rules), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and validation scope. However, it lacks details on the return format or what constitutes a valid vs. invalid result, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret outcomes. Still, it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter ('intent' as a JSON string). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the JSON should represent a crypto trading intent. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value from the description.

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 with specific verbs ('validate a crypto trading intent') and resource ('intent'), distinguishing it from siblings like commit_intent (which submits) and create_intent (which creates). It explicitly mentions what it catches (missing fields, invalid amounts, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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: 'Always validate before committing a swap, trade, or exchange.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool (before committing) and implies alternatives (like commit_intent for submission). It clearly establishes the tool's role in the workflow relative to siblings.

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