open_rob

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It excellently discloses the critical return format (unsigned CBOR hex transaction requiring client-side signing), but misses lifecycle context—such as whether the position can be cancelled via cancel_rob, how long it remains open, or gas fee implications.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the critical return type information. Every word serves a purpose for a blockchain developer integrating this endpoint.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (unsigned transaction). However, for a 4-parameter financial operation with complex sibling interactions, it could mention the relationship to get_redemption_orders or the redemption queue mechanism.

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 coverage is 75% (3/4 params described). The description mentions 'ADA' and 'max price limit' which align with lovelacesAmount and maxPrice, but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. The 'asset' enum parameter is not contextualized in the description text.

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 specific action (Open), resource (ROB/Redemption Order Book position), and key inputs (ADA, max price limit). It distinguishes itself from siblings like adjust_rob, cancel_rob, and redeem_rob by specifying this creates a 'new' position.

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?

While the word 'new' implies this is for initial creation (vs. adjust_rob for modifications), there are no explicit when-to-use guidelines, prerequisites, or named alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to use this versus redeem_rob or how it interacts with the redemption queue.

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