Prepare Create Trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool never signs or submits, reinforcing the read-only nature. It also mentions validation and local handling of hidden amounts, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe the output or what happens after preparation.

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 four sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it avoids unnecessary detail and gets the key points across efficiently.

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's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, many siblings) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait, but lacks information about the return value, workflow positioning, and prerequisites beyond orderType selection. The agent may need additional guidance to use the tool correctly in a multi-step process.

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 schema has 56% parameter description coverage, so some burden falls on the description. The description adds context for orderType selection and hidden amounts (related to offerAmount/requestAmount), but does not explain other parameters like wallet, expiresAt, recipient, or fillPolicy. It provides moderate added value but does not fully compensate for undocumented 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 validates and prepares a one-off OTC order, specifying it's for ChainWhisper audited orders. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chainwhisper_prepare_create_recurring by explicitly mentioning 'one-off' and states it never signs or submits, clarifying its role in the workflow.

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 tells the agent to select an explicit orderType to avoid confusion, and references chainwhisper_order_types for explanation. It also notes that hidden amounts stay local, guiding on when to include certain parameters. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like chainwhisper_prepare_fill or chainwhisper_prepare_counter, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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