submit_swap

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

The description reveals that an API key is required and states the return values (signature and confirmation status), which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it does not mention the irreversible nature of broadcasting, potential failure modes, or whether the operation is a write to the blockchain, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key requirement (API key) and return value. No wasted words or 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?

Given the generic schema and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview, covering the primary identifier, prerequisite, and return. However, it omits details about the args structure beyond build_id and any error conditions, making it not fully complete for a tool with a flexible schema.

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 input schema is a generic 'args' object with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'build_id' as a key, but does not explain the expected structure of 'args' or any other possible parameters. The ambiguity is high, making it difficult for an agent to reliably construct valid input.

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 action ('Broadcast an already-signed swap transaction') with a specific resource (swap transaction) and key identifier (build_id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_swap, which would construct the transaction rather than submit it.

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 phrase 'already-signed' implies this tool is used after a swap has been built and signed, but it does not explicitly name the prerequisite tool (e.g., build_swap) nor provide exclusions. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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