Prepare Strata execution

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation, but the description does not disclose what side effects occur (e.g., does it invalidate the quote? Are signatures persisted?). It also doesn't mention idempotency or destructiveness beyond annotations. With annotations covering the basic mutability, the description adds minimal context beyond the two-path requirement.

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 a single sentence that packs essential usage information without fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and then succinctly covers the two authentication paths. No redundant statements.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two distinct paths, 7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core usage but lacks some details: what happens if both paths are used, validation behavior, or whether the returned transaction is partially signed. Still, it adequately covers the critical decision points.

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 57% with 7 parameters, and the description adds clarity by associating which parameters belong to which path. For instance, it explicitly pairs quoteId+ownerWallet+sessionPublicKey for one-signature, and challengeId+authorizationSignature for two-step. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, aiding correct parameter selection.

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 that it prepares a quote-bound partially signed transaction, with a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('Strata execution'). It distinguishes from siblings like strata_order_prepare and strata_twap_prepare by mentioning 'quote-bound' and the execution context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast it with other prepare tools, so a slight deduction.

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 explains two usage paths: one with quoteId+ownerWallet+sessionPublicKey for one-signature, and a legacy two-step path with challengeId+authorizationSignature. It clearly indicates that the challengeId path is still accepted. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the two paths give clear context for when to use which parameters.

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