Strata TWAPs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by noting the data is 'sanitized' and specifically returns progress and terminal receipts. This gives behavioral context beyond the safety annotations, though it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits.

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 fluff. It conveys the core operation immediately without any unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description is inadequate for a tool with two required parameters. It fails to explain the return format (beyond 'progress and terminal receipts'), the role of marketId, or any usage prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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% and the tool description does not explain the parameters. marketId and walletAddress are only defined by their regex patterns, and the description's mention of 'wallet-owned' hints at walletAddress but provides no detail on format or semantics.

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 reads TWAP progress and terminal receipts for wallet-owned schedules, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from write tools like strata_twap_submit, but omits the marketId parameter from the purpose, so it's not fully complete.

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 for checking TWAP progress, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like strata_twap_challenge or strata_order_status. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.

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