Submit Strata order control

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds the 'stable retry key' concept, which implies idempotent retry behavior, but doesn't disclose what happens on failure (e.g., whether the order is partially executed, whether it can be retried safely). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a brief note on prerequisites or retry behavior without becoming verbose.

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 (4 required params, no output schema, no annotations beyond hints), the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the relationship between orderControlId and the signed transaction, nor what the response contains. The sibling tools suggest a multi-step flow (challenge -> prepare -> submit), but the description doesn't clarify where this fits in that flow.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'externally signed order transaction' and 'stable retry key', which maps to signedTransactionBase64 and idempotencyKey, but it doesn't explain marketId or orderControlId. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's patterns, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of each parameter from names alone.

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 the action ('Submit an externally signed order transaction') and the key resource ('order transaction'), with a specific qualifier ('with a stable retry key'). It distinguishes from siblings like strata_order_prepare and strata_order_status by focusing on submission of a signed transaction, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage context: it's for submitting an already-signed order transaction, which suggests it should be used after preparation steps. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like strata_order_prepare or strata_execution_submit. The 'stable retry key' hints at idempotent retry usage but doesn't elaborate.

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