Unsigned tx: sell AgentPad tokens back to the curve (whole-token amount). v1 or v2. Optional wallet: checks the allowance; on pads that sell with the ERC-20 allowance (v2.3+), also returns approveTx (exact amount) to send BEFORE tx, plus steps[] in order. tx is always the sell.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| wallet | No | the selling wallet (recommended): checks its allowance to the pad | |
| slippagePct | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / walletAdded value: +{
+ "description": "the selling wallet (recommended): checks its allowance to the pad",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the transaction is unsigned, that the return payload may include approveTx (exact amount) and steps[] in order, and that tx is always the sell. It adds real sequencing guidance not available in structured fields. It does not mention the version-detection mechanics or what happens when the wallet is omitted beyond the implicit case.
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?
Dense, telegraphic, and front-loaded with the essential action; the conditional approveTx/steps[] caveat follows the main statement. Slightly compressed phrasing ('v1 or v2', 'on pads that sell with the ERC-20 allowance') costs a little readability but no sentence is wasted.
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 4-parameter transaction builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains enough of the return shape (approveTx, steps[], tx) to be actionable, but leaves slippagePct semantics and the token identifier undefined. Adequate rather than complete.
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 only 25% (only wallet is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that amount is a whole-token quantity, which is genuinely valuable, but slippagePct and token are never explained in the description or schema. Partial compensation for a real gap.
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?
Specific verb and resource: builds an unsigned sell transaction for AgentPad tokens back to the curve, with a scope note (whole-token amount) and version coverage (v1 or v2). It does not name the closest sibling, build_sell_with_permit_tx, so the agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied through the conditional behavior: pass a wallet to get an allowance check, and on v2.3+ pads the approveTx must be sent BEFORE tx. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over build_sell_with_permit_tx or when to consult quote_sell first, so routing between siblings is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.