orca_swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it is minimal. It does not mention whether the swap requires pre-approval, how slippage is handled (despite a slippageBps parameter), or any side effects. The agent lacks essential context about the tool's 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 sentence of 5 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose. However, it might be too minimal, missing important context that could be added without significant bloat.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, wallet requirements, or how the swap works (e.g., constant product formula). The agent would need to rely on external knowledge or trial and error.

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 67%, meaning 4 of 6 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. While the schema itself provides some guidance, the description does not enhance understanding of parameters like 'isExactInput' or 'slippageBps'.

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 action ('Swap tokens') and the specific protocol ('Orca Whirlpool'), providing a clear verb+resource+context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling swap tools (e.g., jupiter_swap, raydium-pools), relying solely on protocol name for differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other DEX swaps). There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred use cases, or when not to use it. The agent must infer solely from protocol name.

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