Prepare Strata Current control

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

The annotations mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-idempotent, but the description does not warn about these properties. Instead, it only mentions that upsert 'fails closed', which is insufficient behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation. This is a significant gap given the annotations are not explained.

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 brief and gets to the core purpose in two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main action and the second adds a critical constraint. It is concise, though it packs several concepts into the second sentence, which slightly reduces readability.

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?

The tool is complex with 15 parameters, no output schema, and no documentation of return values or errors. The description only hints at one condition (verified reference) and omits prerequisites like maker wallet funding, permissions, or how the unsigned transaction will be returned. The absence of any parameter explanation or usage flow makes it incomplete for a non-trivial operation.

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 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the action and the market reference requirement. The schema itself provides types and constraints, but the description fails to clarify how the many BPS and depth parameters interrelate or which are required for upsert vs cancel.

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 it builds 'one exact unsigned maker-owned Current transaction' and distinguishes between upsert and cancel behavior with the 'fails closed' clause. It differentiates from siblings by using 'Current' in the name and description, but doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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 mentions that upsert requires a verified on-chain reference while cancel does not, which provides some context for when each action is appropriate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'strata_market_making_strand_prepare' or when to prefer the submit tool, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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