swap_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It implies a mutation (execute) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or idempotency. It does note the input type and return format (list of SwapTransactionResponse), adding minimal transparency beyond the bare action.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence is relevant, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining the two sentences, but it remains concise.

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 presence of an output schema (SwapTransactionResponse), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks usage context and parameter explanations, making it only minimally adequate for a moderate-complexity tool with one required parameter and a nested schema.

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%, meaning the input schema's own descriptions must suffice. The description only mentions the container type without explaining its properties or the role of 'transaction_id'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which already describes 'transaction_id' as a quote ID. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 executes a swap transaction, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'swap_quote' (which provides quotes) and other transaction execution tools (stake_transaction, unstake_transaction). The verb 'execute' is specific and resource-targeted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a swap quote first) or exclusions. The agent receives no context to decide between this and related tools.

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