swap_build_cbor

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 the key non-obvious trait that the returned CBOR is unsigned and must be signed externally, meaning the tool does not itself execute the swap. It omits auth/permission requirements, whether the build has side effects (e.g. order reservation), and any rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loading the action and then the return value; every clause carries information. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return value (the CBOR to sign), which is the most important missing piece. However, for a mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations it should also state auth prerequisites, error conditions, and where this fits in the swap flow; those gaps keep it at adequate rather than complete.

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 including the nested tokenOut object are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is the baseline rather than a value-add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build an unsigned transaction CBOR for an aggregated swap') and the 'unsigned' qualifier distinguishes it from a submit/sign tool. It does not, however, name the sibling tools (e.g. swap_aggregate, submit_swap) that an agent must choose between.

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 'needs to be signed by the user's wallet' implies this is a build step preceding signing/submission, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisites (e.g. wallet connection), and no named alternatives.

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