Prepare Create Recurring

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'validate and prepare' is consistent. It adds context about inventory routes and price format, but does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-load the core purpose and key features. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete on purpose but lacks details on return value or validation specifics. It covers the essential context for usage but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that prices use 'quote per base' and that visible/private-token inventory routes are supported, which relates to the liquidity parameters. With schema description coverage at 78%, this overarching context is meaningful.

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 tool validates and prepares a recurring ChainWhisper order with explicit orderType, and specifies support for public/fixed-recipient and visible/private-token inventory routes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chainwhisper_prepare_create_trade by using 'recurring' but does not explicitly compare.

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 implies the tool is for recurring orders and mentions the need for explicit orderType, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives. The usage hint for orderTypes is in the schema, not the description.

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