read_swap_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it says no wallet or network is needed, enumerates exactly what is read (gives/wants, coins carried, bound status), and discloses refusal conditions (contract call, unshielded value, multiple token types). It stops short of describing error reporting or whether the carried transaction's cryptographic proofs are validated.

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 core capability is front-loaded and most sentences earn their place. The opening explanation of how a swap half is constructed is useful background for understanding the trust model, but it makes the paragraph longer than strictly necessary for selecting the 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 a domain-specific, complex tool with no output schema, the description gives a strong operational picture: what is parsed, what makes input invalid, side-effect freedom, and the natural next step. It is slightly incomplete in not naming the exact shape of the returned fields or how proof verification factors in, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 input schema already documents the single 'offer' parameter fully (offer file text or base64 of the serialized, proven transaction). The description reinforces that the offer is read as a transaction, but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (reads) and resource (a swap offer), and explains exactly which facts are extracted from the carried transaction rather than from the maker's claims. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_swap_offer, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Gives clear sequencing advice – 'Check the terms here before take_swap_offer' – which tells the agent where this fits relative to the most relevant alternative. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct contrast with get_swap_offer, but the refusals section implies the tool's boundary.

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