Create swap pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't describe what this entails—whether it's a blockchain transaction requiring gas fees, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or if it returns a pool address. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'swap pool' is in this context, what the creation process involves (e.g., on-chain transaction), what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns (e.g., a pool address). Given the complexity implied by sibling tools in the 'strato.swap' namespace, more context is warranted.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (tokenA, tokenB, isStable) documented in the schema. The description mentions 'between tokenA and tokenB,' aligning with the schema but adding no extra semantic context beyond what's already provided. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new swap pool between tokenA and tokenB'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.swap.add-liquidity' or 'strato.swap.execute', which also involve swap pool operations but for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., token approvals, existing pools), when not to use it (e.g., if a pool already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'strato.swap.add-liquidity' for adding to existing pools.

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