Prepare Counter

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: counter terms are recipient-bound, confidential amounts stay local, and legacy Standard orders use a separate route. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. The description enhances understanding without contradiction.

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: two sentences that convey the core purpose and key behavioral nuances. No unnecessary words or repetition, and it front-loads the critical information.

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 complexity of counterorders and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return value, prerequisites, error scenarios, or how the output is used. While annotations indicate idempotency, the agent lacks full context for reliable invocation.

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 low (40%); only offerAmount and requestAmount have descriptions. The tool description does not explain the order, wallet, or expiresAt parameters. It indirectly references confidential amounts but does not add substantial meaning to the input schema beyond what is already provided in schema descriptions for two 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 states it prepares a 'canonical Direct counterorder' against a trusted one-off order, specifying recipient-bound terms and confidential token amounts. It distinguishes the tool as specific to countering orders, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like chainwhisper_prepare_fill or chainwhisper_prepare_create_trade.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to counter vs. fill vs. create trade). The description implies use for countering existing orders but lacks conditional advice or mentions of prerequisites.

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