obol_swap_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the tool costs $0.25 USDC, and it returns a transaction that the agent must sign and submit (i.e., it does not execute the swap itself). This is significant transparency. It does not mention potential side effects or limitations (e.g., balance checks, slippage behavior), but the essential behavioral facts are present.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary function is stated first, the cost is front-loaded, and no redundant information is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role: build a transaction, get serialized bytes, sign and submit. It does not specify the output format or error conditions, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly given the schema explains parameters. The cost disclosure adds useful context. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so all six parameters are individually documented in the schema (e.g., amount in atomic units, slippage default). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the cost implication. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Build a Jupiter swap transaction for signing'), the resource (a swap transaction), and the immediate outcome (returns serialized transaction to sign and submit). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling obol_swap_quote, which likely provides pricing, by framing this as the execution-building step.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs a serialized swap transaction to sign and submit, likely after obtaining a quote. It does not explicitly name obol_swap_quote as the alternative or list conditions for when not to use it, but the context of 'build for signing' provides clear usage context without exclusions.

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