create_dca_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return behavior ('Returns an unsigned transaction CBOR to be signed by the wallet'), implicating a build-then-sign workflow rather than immediate submission. However, it omits authorization requirements, whether the order is registered before signing, and what the agent must do next.

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, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the return-value note follows. 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?

With 11 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the return type but leaves the surrounding workflow (signing/submission step, order lifecycle) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a transaction-building tool.

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 11 parameters (including nested maxPrice/minPrice objects and defaults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) order'), expands the acronym, and clarifies the nature of the operation ('automated recurring swaps at specified intervals'). This clearly distinguishes it from read siblings (get_dca_orders, get_all_dca_orders) and the destructive sibling (cancel_dca_order) without needing to name them.

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 phrase 'automated recurring swaps at specified intervals' implies the use case (recurring buys vs. one-time swaps), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like submit_swap or swap_aggregate, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the described behavior.

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