Prepare Strata TWAP transaction

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, etc.), the description discloses the single-signature flow, that the tool returns a transaction needing signature, and that an older challenge+signature method is still accepted. This adds meaningful behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant phrasing. The key behavioral note about signing is concise and high-value. Every word 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 the complexity of a multi-step flow (challenge, prepare, submit) and sibling tools, the description gives only minimal context about the overall process. It does not mention that the signed transaction must then be submitted via a submit tool, nor fully explain the two usage modes (place vs cancel). The output schema is absent, so return value details are also missing, but a short prepare tool can suffice if the flow is obvious from the tool name and siblings.

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. It groups parameters by action ('place fields' vs 'twapId to cancel') and mentions challengeId/authorizationSignature, adding semantic meaning for a few params. However, it leaves most of the 13 parameters undocumented, relying on the schema's patterns/enums, so it only partially compensates.

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 it prepares a canonical TWAP transaction, specifying the verb 'prepare' and the resource 'TWAP transaction.' It differentiates from sibling tools by being specifically for TWAP and being the prepare step in the flow, distinct from challenge/submit/cancel 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?

It provides direct usage guidance: pass the action itself and sign the returned transaction, with a note that a challengeId+authorizationSignature still works. This implies when to use it (canonical approach) and hints at alternatives (challenge-based), but does not explicitly name other tools or state when not to use it.

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