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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: transactions are unsigned, buys are capped at 0.5 ETH, sells may require up to two Permit2/Universal Router approvals, and the Permit2 approval lasts 24 hours. It also describes slippage bounds, return contents, warnings, gas estimates, and the need to send steps sequentially and confirm via get_transaction_status.

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 dense but front-loaded, beginning with the essential unsigned buy/sell purpose and scope exclusion. Most sentences carry operational value, though the single-paragraph form makes it heavier to parse than a lightly structured version would be.

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 complex, multi-step transaction builder with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape, approval steps, sequential execution, slippage behavior, warnings, and safety guidance. Nothing critical to calling or safely executing the tool appears absent.

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 already 80%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the amount parameter on sells ('50%' or 'all'), the token format, and slippage defaults and bounds. It does not expand on the wallet parameter beyond the schema's own description, so it is not maximally additive.

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 action and resource: unsigned buy/sell transactions for CoinFactory-launched tokens through their Flaunch pool. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling swap tools with 'Not for other tokens: use the swap tools,' so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including sell amount forms, sequencing of approval steps, and a clear exclusion for non-CoinFactory tokens. It also tells the agent how to behave when a human is present versus running autonomously, and notes 'Agents only.'

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