arcade_swap

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns descriptors (not executing), specifies chain, recipient behavior, token unit handling, and required execution order. It does not explicitly state safety (read-only) but implies no mutation as it produces descriptors.

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 concise (4 sentences) with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter specifics, execution order. No repetition or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers output structure (mentions contractAddress, abiFunctionSignature, abiParameters) and execution order. It is missing details on slippageBps and error handling, but overall provides sufficient context for a developer to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains tokenIn/tokenOut accept symbols or addresses, amountIn is raw units with decimal note for USDC, and recipient is the agent wallet. It neglects to describe the optional slippageBps parameter, but the other four required parameters are well-addressed.

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 builds approve+swap contract-call descriptors for signing on ARC-TESTNET, with specific verb 'Build' and resource 'contract-call descriptors'. It distinctly distinguishes from sibling tools like arcade_swap_finalize by focusing on descriptor generation.

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 implies usage context (generating calls to be signed and executed in order) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like arcade_quote or arcade_swap_finalize. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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