confirm_autonomous_swap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: a tier gate (scout_plus) that must be satisfied before invocation, plus the fact that verification happens against public RPC and triggers economic reconciliation, implying ledger state changes. It still omits what happens on an 'ambiguous' status or what a failed verification does to the reservation.

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 substantive content is a single efficient sentence, but the leading bracketed block of API paths and authority endpoints is internal plumbing that consumes roughly half the text without helping an agent select or invoke the tool. The useful tier-gate fact is buried in that prefix rather than front-loaded as prose.

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 non-read-only, open-world tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the intent but not the outcome: it does not say what the caller gets back, how a failed or ambiguous confirmation affects the reservation, or how it sequences with prepare_autonomous_swap and release_autonomous_reservation. The essential capability and tier prerequisite are present, so it is minimally viable.

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 100% across all 8 parameters, so required fields (reservationId, txHash, agentSessionId), the status enum, and the prepare_autonomous_swap linkage are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 and resource: submitting an on-chain tx hash for independent RPC receipt verification and economic reconciliation. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like confirm_swap, confirm_execution, or get_receipt, leaving the agent to infer that this is the confirmation leg of prepare_autonomous_swap.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description implies a post-execution step by describing a tx hash submission, but nothing tells the agent to call this instead of confirm_swap or to follow it with release_autonomous_reservation.

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