Prepare swap for signing

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the human-in-the-loop safety model ('Nothing is sent until the user confirms in their wallet'), the non-custodial handoff (local link, wallet-signed), and a hard refusal condition ('Refuses tokens flagged as honeypots'). It stops short of link expiry, fee/spend source, or failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, then the safety guarantee, then the refusal edge case. Nothing is repeated from the schema or wasted.

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?

With only 3 fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by explaining the return value (a local link) and who acts next (the user in MetaMask). Gaps remain around link lifetime, what happens if the user rejects or the quote goes stale, and whether any auth/wallet is needed before calling.

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 100%, so token, amount_eth (with its 10 ETH cap) and slippage_percent (auto-raised to cover buy tax) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that this is an ETH → token direction, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Prepares an ETH → token swap on Robinhood Chain') plus the concrete artifact returned ('a local link where the user connects MetaMask, reviews a fresh quote and signs'). This is clearly distinct from the quoting sibling (robinhood_swap_quote) and the polling sibling (robinhood_swap_status), since it produces a signable handoff rather than a quote or a status.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'a fresh quote' and of refusing honeypot tokens hints that a quote/safety check is a precursor, but the description never names robinhood_swap_quote or robinhood_token_safety as the alternative, nor does it state prerequisites or when NOT to call this.

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