submit_swap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call merely reports/logs the submission for analytics and tracking rather than executing a swap, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits auth requirements, idempotency/duplicate-handling, and failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the purpose leads immediately.

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 low-complexity reporting tool with a fully-covered schema, the description covers what it does, but with no annotations and no output schema it should say more about when to invoke it and what the backend does with the data (e.g., auth, failure handling).

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 five parameters (txHash, status, maker, staker, error) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or usage, 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 names a specific verb ('Log a swap transaction submission') and resource, and clarifies the destination ('the Cardexscan backend') and intent ('for analytics and tracking'). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling swap tools like swap_aggregate or swap_build_cbor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after a swap has been submitted on-chain), nor any stated prerequisites or conditions. The 'log ... for analytics' phrasing implies a post-submission reporting step but leaves the trigger entirely to inference.

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