Submit a prepared Strata Vault transaction

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: Strata verifies the transaction is exactly the prepared one, pays network fee/rent when sponsored, recovers costs later from deposits as network_cost_atoms, and notes the owner needs no SOL/RPC. It also clarifies idempotency per idempotencyKey. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences pack a lot of information without verbosity. The front-loaded first sentence states the purpose and transaction types, and subsequent sentences add fee, sponsorship, idempotency, and outcome-reading context. Slightly dense but earned its length.

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?

For a submit tool with no output schema, the description covers key contextual points: when to use, fee handling, no SOL/RPC requirement, idempotency, and where to read the outcome (strata_vault_submission). It does not mention failure modes or return values, but the sibling reference mitigates that gap. Overall complete for an integration point.

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 67%, and the description does not add much per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. It reinforces that idempotency is tied to idempotencyKey and that signedTransactionBase64 is the prepared transaction plus owner signature, but it does not explain idempotencyKey format or any constraints. Since coverage is moderate, this is an adequate but not exceptional score.

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 pairing: 'Submit an owner-signed prepared Vault transaction' and enumerates transaction types (setup, deposit, withdrawal, session, policy, pause). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like strata_vault_setup or strata_vault_submission by focusing on the submission step of an already-prepared, owner-signed transaction.

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 makes the usage context explicit: it is for owner-signed prepared Vault transactions, and it mentions that the owner needs no SOL or RPC because Strata handles fees. It also gives an explicit alternative: 'read the outcome with strata_vault_submission.' It does not state when NOT to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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