submit_order

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the forwarding nature and keyless operation, but lacks details on failure behavior, error responses, or rate limits. The return value is mentioned succinctly.

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, fully front-loaded, no redundant information. Every sentence contributes essential guidance.

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?

Despite no output schema and nested objects, the description covers the tool's purpose, input sources, and key constraint (pre-signed). It lacks examples or error scenarios, but is sufficient for an agent familiar with the domain.

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 is 3. The description adds workflow context by linking parameters to build_order outputs ('Pass the exact order object and fullAppData from build_order'), which helps the agent understand the data flow beyond schema definitions.

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 relays a pre-signed order to the Ophis orderbook, specifying the exact inputs (order, fullAppData from build_order, signature, from). It differentiates from sibling tools like build_order and get_quote by explicitly noting the pre-signed requirement.

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 explains that inputs must come from build_order and that the tool only forwards (holds no keys). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the workflow order.

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