sideswap_swap_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It indicates the status is 'persisted' and hints at a lifecycle step (broadcast), but does not describe what the returned status contains, error conditions (e.g., swap not found), or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple status check but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides follow-up guidance. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only one parameter. The description explains the tool's role in the swap lifecycle but does not describe the structure of the returned status or how to interpret it. For a status-check tool, this is minimally complete but leaves gaps for the agent.

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 single parameter 'order_id' has 100% schema description coverage (described as 'Order ID returned from sideswap_execute_swap'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. With high coverage, a score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the persisted status of a SideSwap atomic asset swap, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool lw_tx_status by specifying that after broadcast, the txid should be passed to that tool for on-chain confirmation tracking.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (get status of a swap) and when-to-use-alternative guidance (after broadcast, use lw_tx_status for on-chain confirmations). This helps the agent select the correct tool in the workflow.

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