swap_sign_and_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions signing and broadcasting but omits side effects, permission requirements, or error scenarios like invalid walletPath or malformed transaction.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the core action but lacks details on return values, broadcasting behavior, and required network context. For a financial transaction tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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?

The description gives basic meaning to both parameters (walletPath as local wallet path, transactionBase64 as swap transaction to sign) but no additional details like format constraints or acceptable values. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool signs a base64 swap transaction and broadcasts it, using a local wallet and Dritan. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like swap_build (build only) and swap_build_sign_and_broadcast (all three steps).

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 after building a swap transaction but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus swap_build_sign_and_broadcast. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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