Swap (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the internal sequence (simulate, check policy, broadcast), the signing model (autonomous signer or human-approval via gno_confirm), the funding failure mode, and the approval prerequisite. It doesn't mention irreversibility, gas costs, or failure modes beyond funding, but the core write/side-effect behavior is clearly communicated.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and internal call, the second describes the execution flow, and the third covers prerequisites and failure mode. Everything earns its place and the most important information 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 complex write tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main execution flow, the signing flow, and the funding failure case. It does not describe the exact structure of the approval_token or preview response, but that is largely an output concern. It could mention what happens on swap failure (e.g., revert), but the coverage is strong overall.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the requirement that tokenIn must be approved and that minOut is a slippage floor, but these are either in the schema or straightforward. The description does not provide significant additional parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Swap on GnoSwap' via 'router.ExactInSwapRoute', from the agent's own wallet. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the approval prerequisite (gno_approve), the approval_token handoff to gno_confirm, and the simulate-only preview mode, so an agent can tell it apart from gno_simulate, gno_call, and gno_approve.

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 gives clear context: the tool requires prior token approval via gno_approve, may return needs_funding if the wallet is unfunded, and offers either a broadcast flow or a simulate-only preview. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use gno_simulate for simulation only' or state when not to use this tool, though the simulate-only mention strongly implies the distinction.

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