create_stableswap_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool returns an unsigned CBOR-hex transaction for client-side signing, which tells the agent the tool does not broadcast the transaction. It does not mention fees, side effects, or failure conditions, but the key output behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical output behavior. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The definition provides the essential call context: the action, the direction logic, and the return format since there is no output schema. It is slightly ambiguous whether 'Submit' means broadcast or construct, though the unsigned-transaction detail mostly clarifies this.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the minting direction already present in the schema and adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a stableswap order', and clearly defines the two supported directions via the minting flag. This distinguishes it from related order tools like cancel_stableswap_order and other protocol tools.

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 gives clear directional usage by explaining minting=true for collateral-to-iAsset and minting=false for iAsset-to-collateral. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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