EXECUTE_NEAR_SWAP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool notifies the 1Click service and triggers swap execution. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the txHash is invalid. Without annotations, this is an acceptable but incomplete disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the step number and action, and every sentence adds value—purpose, notification mechanism, and usage context.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, when to use it, and the trigger mechanism. However, it does not mention the return value or error conditions, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (txHash and depositAddress) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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: 'Submit a deposit transaction hash to initiate the swap.' It specifies the action (submit), resource (deposit transaction hash), and outcome (trigger swap execution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GET_NEAR_SWAP_FULL_QUOTE and CHECK_NEAR_SWAP_STATUS, which are for quotes and status.

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 after users have sent their funds to the deposit address from the full quote response.' It implies a step-by-step process (STEP 4) and clearly indicates when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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