compose_order

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, but the description adds a crucial behavioral nuance: give_quantity and get_quantity are TOTAL amounts, not per-unit prices, with the price being their ratio. This is a common misuse trap and the examples clearly illustrate the correct interpretation, going far beyond the annotations.

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 somewhat long but every sentence is purposeful, front-loading the critical warning about total amounts before providing examples. The two examples are redundant in some ways but helpfully cover both buy and sell directions, making the length justified.

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 9-parameter compose tool, the description thoroughly covers the most error-prone aspect (total vs. per-unit amounts) and the schema documents all other parameters. It doesn't mention the return format, but the 'compose' naming convention and the sibling broadcast_transaction tool imply the output, so this is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions cover all 9 parameters, but the description adds significant value by clarifying the semantics of give_quantity and get_quantity, including the 10^8 multiplier for divisible assets, satoshis for BTC, and how to interpret the price ratio. The two concrete examples (buying TOKENA and selling XCP) make the parameter usage unambiguous.

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 clearly states 'Compose a DEX order to trade Counterparty assets,' using a specific verb (compose) and resource (DEX order). It distinguishes from sibling compose tools like compose_send and compose_issuance by focusing specifically on orders, with examples for both buying and selling.

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 implicitly indicates usage by providing buy and sell examples, making it clear this tool is for creating DEX orders. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., compose_cancel for cancelling), leaving room for slightly more explicit guidance.

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