sodax_relay_submit_tx

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds that re-submission is a no-op and that the tx must be finalized, which prevents premature submission. This adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The most critical and front-loaded information is presented first: the purpose, then precondition, then special case for split-tx chains.

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?

While the usage context is well-covered, there is no description of the return value or response format beyond the `format` parameter. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns upon success or failure, which is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds context for `chainId` (decimal string, example, and mapping function), explains the conditional nature of `data`, and clarifies the response format parameter. This enriches understanding.

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 action: submitting a confirmed spoke-chain transaction to the SODAX intent relay for delivery. It specifies the resource (intent relay) and distinguishes from sibling read-only 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?

It provides clear context: the transaction must be finalized on the source chain, and re-submission is a no-op. It also notes when to use the optional `data` argument for split-tx chains. However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives.

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