Lends Prepare Psm Swap In

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety guarantees. It adds that this is an exact USDG-to-leUSD prepared transaction, but it does not explain what the constructed transaction contains, whether it is broadcast, or how it should be chained with quote or approve steps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the direction and exactness are stated immediately.

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 one-parameter tool with safety-oriented annotations, this is minimally viable, but there are clear gaps: no usage conditions, no return/output description, and no indication of how this prepare step relates to quote and approve siblings. The absence of an output schema leaves the agent with less structured context.

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 sole parameter usdgAssets has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description never explicitly states that this parameter is the exact amount of USDG to swap in or what units are expected. The parameter name and the word 'exact' give only a weak hint, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Construct') and a specific resource ('an exact USDG-to-leUSD PSM transaction'). The USDG-to-leUSD wording clearly distinguishes it from prepare_psm_swap_out, and 'transaction' distinguishes it from quote_psm_swap_in.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quote_psm_swap_in, prepare_psm_swap_out, or the related approve tools. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the tool's name and sibling list.

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