swap_create

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: non-custodial nature, provider-specific return types (payinAddress vs redirectUrl), asset counts, and XMR confirmation requirements. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Concise 3-sentence structure, front-loaded with main action, every sentence adds unique value. No redundancy 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?

Handles provider-specific return types and auto-select well. Lacks mention of asynchronous nature or need to check swap_status for completion, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Could be more complete for a complex cross-chain operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining provider enum details (changenow=1288+ assets) and that refundAddress is optional. It does not add extra meaning for other parameters but compensates for provider clarity.

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 it creates a non-custodial cross-chain swap order, specifies three providers with distinct features (asset counts, return types), and distinguishes from single-chain swaps (evm_swap, sol_swap) by emphasizing cross-chain capability.

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?

Provides provider selection guidance and mentions auto-select if omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling swap tools (e.g., when to use swap_create vs evm_swap/sol_swap), though the cross-chain nature is implied.

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