Submit Strata Strand control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context by emphasizing the transaction is 'exact' and 'externally maker-signed' and that a 'stable retry key' supports safe retries, but it does not describe the irreversible on-chain effects beyond what destructiveHint already signals.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler. Key qualifiers ('exact', 'externally maker-signed', 'stable retry key') are front-loaded and each earns its place.

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 that this is a destructive, on-chain submission tool with four required parameters, no output schema, and no relationship to prepare/current siblings described, the description is too sparse. An agent would need to inspect sibling tools or external docs to know the full submission flow, retry behavior, and expected result.

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 most of the parameter-meaning burden. It gives real semantics for signedTransactionBase64 ('exact externally maker-signed Strand transaction') and idempotencyKey ('stable retry key'), but marketId and makerControlId are left implicit despite being required. This is partial compensation for low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and a concrete resource ('externally maker-signed Strand transaction'), plus a useful qualifier ('stable retry key'). It clearly states what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as strata_market_making_strand_prepare or strata_market_making_current_submit.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus the prepare or current_submit siblings, and there is no mention of prerequisites or flow placement. The only implicit cue is the word 'Strand' in the name and description, which is insufficient for confident routing.

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