submit_signed_swap

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses submission via an MEV-protected lane, which is a behavioral trait, but does not explain implications, success conditions, or other behaviors like gas fees or transaction status.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and context without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It states the action but lacks context on return values, prerequisites, or how it integrates with sibling tools like build_swap. For a submission tool, more detail about expected outcomes would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter name 'signed_tx_base64'. The name is self-explanatory, but no format, constraints, or examples are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and clearly identifies the resource ('base64-encoded signed Solana transaction via MEV-protected lane'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like build_swap or auto_swap by specifying that the transaction is already signed and submitted through an MEV-protected lane.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after building and signing a swap). No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings is included.

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