Swap status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses the state set (awaiting_wallet, awaiting_signature, submitted, confirmed, failed) and that a transaction link appears once sent, but says nothing about what those states mean for the caller's next action or whether any state is terminal.

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 followed by the enumeration of outcomes and the transaction link. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the possible states and the transaction link. It remains slightly incomplete in that it does not say which states are terminal or that the link is absent before 'submitted', but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 100% schema coverage the single request_id is fully documented in the schema, including its origin in robinhood_prepare_swap. The description adds no further parameter meaning, but nothing is missing on the parameter side, so baseline 3–4 applies and the description's silence is not a defect.

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?

Identifies the resource (a prepared swap) and the exact information returned (status plus transaction link), and its reference to 'prepared swap' implicitly separates it from robinhood_prepare_swap and robinhood_swap_quote. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, keeping it just short of fully explicit.

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 phrase 'a prepared swap' plus the schema's 'request_id from robinhood_prepare_swap' imply this is called after preparation, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it (polling cadence, whether to re-check until a terminal state) or any when-not guidance.

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