Execute swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or authentication are required, potential side effects (e.g., token transfers, fees), rate limits, or error conditions. This omission is critical for a financial transaction tool.

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 sentence 'Swap within an existing pool.', which is concise but under-specified. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., purpose clarity, usage context) and feels incomplete rather than efficiently structured, as it fails to earn its place with meaningful details.

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 the complexity of a swap operation (financial transaction with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, security implications, or how it integrates with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., how 'isAToB' relates to 'poolAddress') or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 'Swap within an existing pool' is tautological with the title 'Execute swap' and name 'strato.swap.execute', merely restating the action without specifying what 'swap' entails. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings like 'strato.swap.add-liquidity' or 'strato.swap.create-pool', making the purpose vague and minimally informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pool), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'strato.swap.create-pool' for pool creation or 'strato.swap.add-liquidity' for liquidity management, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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