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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description correctly aligns with them by framing this as constructing an unsigned transaction rather than submitting one. Beyond that it adds real context: the Elytrack fee is taken out of amount_hype inside the same transaction, the fee percentage appears in the answer, and Elytrack holds no keys. It stops short of describing error conditions or what happens near the slippage bound.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and fee mechanics appended. No filler, though the fee sentence is dense enough that it may be skimmed on a first pass.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: quote, minimum acceptable amount, and the fee percentage shown in the answer. For a single-transaction builder with four flat parameters this is close to sufficient, missing only failure modes and chain context.

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 50%, and the description compensates by tying amount_hype to the fee calculation ('elytrack_fee_pct of amount_hype') and by explaining that the slippage-driven output is 'the minimum you will accept'. token and wallet are left to their patterns, which are self-explanatory address formats.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Build a Montra buy (HYPE -> token) for your wallet' — and immediately scopes the output as a single unsigned transaction with nonce, fees and gas filled. The parenthetical direction (HYPE -> token) makes it distinguishable from the sibling build_sell_tx without opening either schema.

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 rather than stated: 'Sign it yourself' signals this is a preparation step feeding a later signing/submission step, but no sibling (build_sell_tx, send_signed_tx) is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent must infer the workflow ordering.

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