Connect: exchange code

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new traits — the code is one-time, expires in 300 s, and yields a browser session plus wallet address. Failure modes (reuse, expiry) are thereby inferable. It omits whether authentication or an existing wallet is required.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the object, with the constraints and the return value packed in without waste.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the input constraint and the outcome (browser session + wallet address). Only the upstream dependency on a code-issuing step is left implicit.

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 0% for the single 'code' parameter, so the description carries the burden — and it does add meaningful semantics: provenance (issued by SCDO Wallet), lifetime (300 s), and single-use. It stops short of format details such as length or character set.

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 (redeem/exchange) and resource (one-time return code from SCDO Wallet) with the exact payoff (browser session and wallet address). It is easy to distinguish from connect_start, though it never names the sibling flow that produces the code.

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 300 s TTL and single-use constraint imply this is a code-redemption step that must follow a code-generation step, but no alternative or prerequisite tool (e.g. connect_start) is named. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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