Submit and confirm Strata market making

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it waits for chain-derived confirmation, the preparation token survives stateless HTTP requests and server restarts, and the control ID is the default idempotency key. These details are consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), with no contradiction.

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 only two sentences, and both earn their place: the first defines the action and completion condition, the second adds critical idempotency and token-lifecycle behavior. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 core workflow is described well enough for a likely happy path, but the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, so important gaps remain. In particular, confirmationTimeoutMs semantics, timeout/non-confirmation behavior, and the expected response/return shape are not addressed.

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, the description must compensate for the schema's missing parameter explanations. It clarifies preparationToken ('unchanged', persistent), signedTransactionBase64 ('exact externally signed quickstart transaction'), and makerControlId via 'control ID' as the default idempotency key. It only indirectly implies idempotencyKey and leaves confirmationTimeoutMs entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Submit') and outcome ('wait until Strata's chain-derived maker state confirms the product started or stopped'). It is clear enough to distinguish from prepare and status tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 implies sequencing by requiring an 'exact externally signed quickstart transaction' and the 'unchanged preparation token', telling the agent this is meant to follow market_making_prepare. However, it never says when not to use the tool or names alternatives such as market_making_status for checking state, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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