Lends Prepare Psm Swap Out

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints, such as whether it returns unsigned transaction data, requires prior token approval, or has any rounding/precision behavior.

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 almost no wasted words. It names the verb, the resource, and the direction clearly, which is appropriately concise for such a focused tool.

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 safe invocation, the description is missing important context: it does not state the return value, whether this builds an unsigned transaction, whether approvals are prerequisites, or when to prefer the swap-in, quote, or approve siblings. The simple schema lowers the bar, but the description still leaves too much to inference.

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 0%, and the description never explains leusdAmount. It weakly implies the amount is the leUSD leg of the swap, but it does not specify units, decimals, precision constraints, or how this amount relates to quoting or approval requirements.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Construct an exact leUSD-to-USDG PSM transaction.' The direction leUSD-to-USDG clearly distinguishes it from prepare_psm_swap_in and the quote variants, so an agent can tell what operation this tool performs without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of quote_psm_swap_out, prepare_psm_swap_in, or the approval preparation tools. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and sibling list; there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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