sideswap_execute_swap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses critical behaviors: local PSET verification against quote, abort on balance mismatch, fee tolerance pinned to L-BTC, order persistence for crash recovery, and strict equality check on asset side for asset→L-BTC direction. These details are essential for safe usage.

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 description is relatively concise, with a clear structure starting with the core action, then direction, then safety mechanisms, then prerequisite. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing essential details.

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?

Given the complexity of a swap execution tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all key aspects: direction, verification, failure conditions, persistence, and prerequisite. It is complete enough for safe usage without external documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining behavioral implications of parameters (e.g., send_bitcoins direction logic, flexible_small_amount tolerance, min_recv_amount as a floor check). It enriches the understanding of how parameters interact with the swap execution.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a Liquid atomic swap on SideSwap.' It specifies both directions via the send_bitcoins parameter and distinguishes itself from siblings like sideswap_quote by mandating its prior use.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'ALWAYS call sideswap_quote first and confirm the price with the user.' This provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, and explains the direction parameter effectively.

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