build_swap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the output is unsigned and signing happens client-side, never on the server. However, it does not mention potential errors, return format, or other side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise, with exactly two sentences: one stating the core purpose and one delivering a critical security warning. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains what the tool does and mentions signing, but does not describe the return value structure, any prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a quote), or possible failure modes. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 low (33%), and the description only clarifies the role of quote_id (from get_quote). It does not explain user_address or api_key beyond what the schema provides, nor does it compensate for the lack of documentation on the two required parameters.

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 identifies the tool as generating an unsigned transaction group for a given get_quote quote_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quote or pay_x402_invoice. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'build' or 'create', making the action slightly implicit.

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 implicit usage context (use after obtaining a quote) and provides clear instructions on signing and submitting the group. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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