Prepare CoW Order for Signing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it generates typed data structure, returns EIP-712 JSON and shell commands. This goes beyond annotations by describing the output format and the signing preparation nature, confirming it does not submit orders.

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 extremely concise with two short paragraphs and bullet lists for args and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first line states the action, the workflow hint, then structured parameter and return details. No 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 12 parameters (7 required) and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, workflow position, full input list (though not detailed beyond schema), and detailed return structure (three items). No gaps.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description's Args section lists parameters but does not add new information beyond the schema. It does group them and notes they come from the quote, which is mild added value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 prepares an order for EIP-712 signing, a distinct step after getting a quote. It uses specific verbs and resource, and the sibling tools list shows no overlap (e.g., cow_get_quote, cow_get_order). The workflow hint 'Use this after getting a quote from cow_get_quote' further distinguishes 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 description explicitly says to use this tool after cow_get_quote, providing clear context for its place in the workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use case is very specific and well-defined.

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