swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns 'IntentStub', is 'Not implemented', and does not call a DEX. This fully discloses the no-op nature and lack of side effects, which is honest and clear. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain what IntentStub is, but that's not critical for a stub.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the most critical information ('Honest STUB', 'Not implemented') before adding secondary details. Every word contributes value, and there is no unnecessary fluff. This is exemplary conciseness for a stub definition.

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 stub, this description is complete: it tells the agent not to use it, what it returns, and that it has no side effects. There's no output schema, but the return type is explicitly mentioned. It doesn't need to explain the semantics of a real swap because the tool is purely a placeholder. The context signals confirm simplicity, so nothing important 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to add parameter information because there are none, and it doesn't introduce any confusion.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Honest STUB' and explicitly states 'Not implemented', making it obvious that it is a placeholder for a swap operation. It names the specific intent ('INTENTS swap') and the return type ('IntentStub'), which distinguishes it from functional sibling tools even though it doesn't describe what a real swap would do. This is clear enough for an agent to recognize it as a non-functional stub.

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 explicitly says 'Not implemented', serving as a direct warning not to invoke this tool. It also clarifies that it 'Does not call a DEX', indicating no side effects. While it doesn't point to alternative tools, the primary usage guidance is to avoid this stub, which is exactly what an agent needs to know. This is more explicit than typical guidance because it completely rules out usage.

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