sideswap_peg_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly lists the returned fields (confirmations progress, tx_state, lockup_txid, payout_txid), indicating it's a read-only status check. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but this is acceptable for a simple status tool.

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 with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return values. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose and return data. Minor improvement could note that the tool is non-destructive, but that is implied.

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 description does not add semantic value beyond the input schema, which already covers the single parameter 'order_id' with a clear description. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly uses the verb 'Check' and specifies the resource as 'SideSwap peg order (peg-in or peg-out)', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like sideswap_swap_status or sideswap_peg_quote.

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?

Usage is implied (after initiating a peg), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sideswap_peg_quote or sideswap_execute_swap.

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