SMX: how to trade from your own wallet

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is free, requires no key, and returns specific procedural information including a 'claim-before-cancel safety rule,' which is crucial operational knowledge for the agent.

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?

Two well-structured sentences front-load the purpose and key operational facts. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 that this is a read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool returns (steps, addresses, rules) and its limitations (cannot trade). Minor gap: it does not explicitly state the return format or whether the response is structured, but the overall description is complete for an agent to decide when to call it.

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%, and the single optional parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema as an optional market id that fills in that market's order book address. The description does not mention the parameter, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns steps, contract addresses, and order rules for placing, cancelling and claiming SMX testnet orders. It clarifies a key distinction from siblings by noting 'This server cannot trade; it returns the exact steps,' which tells an agent this is a guide, not an execution tool.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need to know how to trade from your own wallet on Base Sepolia. It does not explicitly list when to use other siblings, but the framing ('from your own wallet', 'server cannot trade') implies it is for guidance rather than market lookup or status checks.

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