executeRedeem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the response is an acknowledgment only and that on-chain confirmation takes 10-60 seconds. It also warns that quoteData, correctingCode, and gas must come from a non-expired getTradeQuote response, covering key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear warnings, and it front-loads the purpose. While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value; minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'obtain explicit user confirmation' repeated), but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (9 params, 8 required, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, response behavior, and execution workflow. However, it lacks explanations for individual parameters and does not describe the return value beyond orderNo. While output schema is absent, more parameter detail would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It only mentions that quoteData, correctingCode, and gas come from getTradeQuote, but does not explain other required parameters like fromTokenCode, fromTokenAmount, toTokenCode, slippage, quoteMode, or tenant. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 begins with 'Place a sell order to redeem on-chain tokens for payment tokens,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly distinguishes from buying by saying 'Do NOT use this for buying — use executePurchase instead,' differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit prerequisites: must call getTradeQuote first, display quote to user, and obtain explicit user confirmation. It also states when not to use (e.g., without valid quote, without user approval, for buying) and directs to getOrderList for tracking, giving comprehensive guidance.

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