assetfare_create_session

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it makes a network request, reserves the caller's one active legacy session slot, creates no blockchain transaction, and never signs or submits. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide and does not contradict them.

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 deliver the core purpose, usage constraints, workflow placement, alternative route, and side-effect profile with no filler. The most important fact—locking a fresh legacy quote into a v1 session—is front-loaded.

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 state-changing tool with five required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite workflow, sibling distinction, network behavior, slot reservation, and explicit non-effects. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, and each parameter already has detailed meaning (e.g., fresh v1 quote UUID, wallet-bound token, caller-generated idempotency key). The description reinforces 'fresh legacy' and 'wallet-bound' concepts but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lock one fresh legacy assetfare_quote into a wallet-bound v1 execution session.' It clearly distinguishes this from the v2 path by naming assetfare_v2_session_create as the alternative and by noting it is only for the legacy Solana-SOL-to-Base/Arbitrum-ETH workflow.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use only after legacy wallet authentication' and 'for a v2 quote use assetfare_v2_session_create instead.' This tells the agent both when to call the tool and which sibling to use when the precondition differs.

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