sideswap_recommend

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

Without annotations, the description covers important behaviors: it 'surfaces the trade-off (lower fee but slower)' and 'warns when the amount exceeds SideSwap's hot-wallet liquidity'. This gives agents realistic expectations. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, behavior, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and when to use it. It could be improved by mentioning the expected output format, but it remains adequate for correct tool selection.

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 67% (amount and direction have descriptions, network only has default). The description adds context about 'large conversions' but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'recommend a peg vs an instant swap-market trade for a BTC ↔ L-BTC conversion'. It uses a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('peg vs instant swap'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sideswap_peg_in or sideswap_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?

Explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS call this for large conversions before initiating a peg', providing clear context for when to use. It implies the trade-off consideration but does not specify when not to use (e.g., for small amounts).

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