open_rob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: it states the tool returns an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing, making clear no on-chain effect occurs at call time. It also explains the rational-number constraint on max price. It stops short of covering prerequisites, fees, or error conditions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action and acronym expansion front-loaded, then max-price semantics, then return format. No redundant or filler phrasing.

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 5-param, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation loop: input semantics, the rational max price, and the CBOR hex return format. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (e.g., required account state) and error scenarios, but nothing that would block a correct call.

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 80% (asset relies on its enum). The description adds genuine meaning by explaining that maxPriceNumerator/maxPriceDenominator form a rational number and by contextualizing lovelacesAmount as the ADA deposit and asset as the iAsset being purchased — relationships absent from the individual schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Open a new ROB buy order'), expands the acronym (Redemption Order Book), and explains the core mechanics: deposit ADA to buy an iAsset up to a max price. This clearly differentiates it from lifecycle siblings like adjust_rob, cancel_rob, claim_rob, and redeem_rob.

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?

'Open a new' implies this is the creation entry point in the ROB lifecycle, which contrasts with adjust/claim/redeem/cancel siblings. However, no alternative tool is named explicitly and there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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