Prepare simple Strata market making

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

The description discloses that Strata resolves IDs, decimals, live mark, tick grid, expiry, safety bounds, and fixed on-chain arrays, and that the tool returns a transaction requiring external signing. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, especially the deferred submission via submit_and_wait. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation, and it clarifies that this tool itself does not submit. It could still mention side effects of 'stop' or error/failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by behavioral detail and the workflow instruction. Every sentence adds value and the structure guides the agent from what the tool does to what to do next.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers the general flow and a few key parameters, but leaves many fields (levels, levelStepBps, asyncOnly, side, action) to be inferred. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or examples to invoke it correctly, especially for the 'stop' action or level structure.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only maps 'market label', 'decimal base size', 'spread', and 'duration' to a few fields, leaving action, product, makerWallet, side, levels, levelStepBps, and asyncOnly unexplained. For 11 parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a correct request without guessing from names and enums.

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 a specific verb ('Prepare'), a specific resource ('Strand or Current'), and the main inputs (market label, decimal base size, spread, duration). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from strata_market_making_submit_and_wait by prescribing the next step, making the tool's role in the workflow unambiguous. The minor mismatch between title 'simple' and description 'pro-level' does not undermine clarity.

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 gives an explicit workflow: prepare the transaction, sign it externally, then call submit_and_wait. This clearly situates the tool relative to its sibling submit_and_wait. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like strata_trade or strata_quote, nor does it mention the 'stop' action or conditions for using start/stop.

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