swap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that a PRIVATE_KEY in .env is required, which is a useful security detail, but fails to disclose that this is an on-chain transaction with potential slippage, fees, or the nature of the returned result (e.g., transaction hash). The scope of side effects remains largely opaque.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and a key requirement in the second. Every word is useful, with no filler or 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?

For a mutating swap tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits any guidance on expected return values, transaction lifecycle, failure scenarios, or slippage/deadline parameters. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for invoking the tool safely and understanding outcomes is incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate or clarify any parameter semantics further.

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 ('Swap') and resource ('tokens using Typus Perp liquidity pool'), which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., create_order, collect_funding_fee) by being the only token swap tool in the list.

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 implies the tool is used when one wants to swap tokens, but it does not explicitly describe when to use it compared to alternatives like create_order or cancel_order. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage context implicit rather than directive.

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