Prepare a Strata TWAP authorization

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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful context that the tool returns exact bytes for an external signing step and that the schedule is bounded. Still, it does not disclose side effects, whether on-chain state changes, or how the returned bytes are meant to be used.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and places the verb and object early, but the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 9 required parameters, no output schema, and no usage context. The description only identifies the output kind and bounded schedule, omitting prerequisites, return format, relationship to submit/cancel tools, and behavioral expectations, so it is not complete enough for reliable agent use.

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% across 9 required parameters. The phrase 'bounded TWAP schedule' gives only a high-level hint and does not explain the meaning or grouping of parameters like marketId, sessionPublicKey, slicesTotal, maximumToleranceBps, intervalSlots, or limitPriceAtoms. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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-resource pair: 'Request exact external-signing bytes' for 'a bounded TWAP schedule.' This avoids tautology and clearly conveys the tool's core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as strata_twap_prepare or strata_twap_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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to call this tool, whether it should precede strata_twap_submit, how it differs from strata_twap_prepare, or what prerequisites must hold before requesting signing bytes.

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