alex_swap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutating, fund-moving operation. It usefully discloses the mainnet-only constraint, but says nothing about whether a wallet must be unlocked, whether the swap is signed and broadcast automatically, that execution is irreversible, how the minAmountOut default of "0" exposes the user to unbounded slippage, or what the response contains. For a swap tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and the mechanism; nothing is padded. The closing tip pointing at earning_opportunities is off-topic promotion rather than decision-relevant information, which is the only real waste.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still needs to know the execution lifecycle (signing, wallet state, return value, failure modes). The mainnet note and token-format note cover part of that, but the safety-critical default of minAmountOut=0 and the expected response are left entirely to the schema and inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters (tokenX, tokenY, amountIn, minAmountOut) are already documented, including the smallest-units note and slippage protection. The description only reinforces the contract-ID format for the token fields. No information about a required price-impact or deadline concept is added, so 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Execute a token swap on ALEX DEX') and identifies the underlying AMM, which distinguishes it from DEX-agnostic siblings like call_contract. It does not, however, reference the sibling quote tool (alex_get_swap_quote) that an agent would normally pair with it, leaving some differentiation to inference among the many other swap tools (bitflow_swap, jingswap_*, stacks_market_*).

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?

Gives two genuine preconditions: tokens must be full contract IDs, and the tool is mainnet-only. But it never says when to prefer this over bitflow_swap or jingswap flows, nor that a quote should be obtained first. Usage is implied by the pool/DEX mention rather than stated as guidance.

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