IMD capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral context: it is experimental, may not work as described, comes with no warranty, and advises reading the code and starting with small amounts. The main gap is that it does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only, side-effect-free call.

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 duplicated lead 'Experimental: Experimental' is wasted text, and the risk/amount warning is front-loaded ahead of the actual purpose, so the description is not well front-loaded. It is short overall but the ordering and repetition cost it.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (price, payment asset, payTo, quote lifetime, launch chains, paid actions) and where the fuller spec lives (/openapi.json). That is largely sufficient, with only the read-only nature left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter information that would be redundant.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (read what the IMD swarm can do) and enumerates the concrete content exposed: price, payment asset, payTo, quote lifetime, launch chains, and paid actions in /openapi.json. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling action tools like imd_pay or imd_quote, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 frames itself as the overview/discovery read ('Read what the IMD swarm can do'), which implies it is the entry point, but it never states when to use it versus imd_check or imd_quote, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable.

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