build_swap

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses 'unsigned' nature (no state change yet), output format ('deploy JSON'), and bonus output ('human-readable summary'). However, misses critical behavioral context: that this doesn't submit to blockchain, approval mechanics via token_in_balance, error conditions (slippage), or that returned JSON requires subsequent signing.

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, zero waste. First sentence states core purpose immediately. Second sentence describes outputs. Every word earns its place; properly front-loaded with no redundant filler.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the return values (compensating for no output schema). However, for a complex DeFi tool with 8 parameters involving slippage, deadlines, and approvals, the description lacks workflow context (e.g., that approval may be needed first, or that this is step 1 of 2 in swap execution).

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 baseline score applies. Description provides high-level context ('swap transaction') that helps interpret parameter relationships, but doesn't add syntax, format details, or parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Build') + resource ('unsigned swap transaction') + scope. Distinguishes from siblings: vs 'get_quote' (this builds executable tx), vs 'submit_transaction' (this returns unsigned for external signing), vs 'build_add_liquidity' (different operation).

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?

Implies usage context via 'for external signing', suggesting use when handling signing outside the tool. However, lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' (e.g., 'use submit_transaction instead to auto-submit') or workflow prerequisites (e.g., 'call get_quote first').

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