get_how_to_buy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides 'step-by-step instructions' and includes contract interactions, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned instructions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get step-by-step instructions for buying a token on Omni.fun') and adds necessary context ('including which contracts to interact with on each chain'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex instructions. It does not explain the return format (e.g., structured steps, links, or code snippets), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can handle responses appropriately.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (symbol and chain) with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('step-by-step instructions for buying a token on Omni.fun'), including details about contracts and chains. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_token (which likely retrieves token data) or simulate_trade (which likely simulates trades rather than providing instructions).

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 implies usage when a user needs buying instructions for a token on Omni.fun, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token (for token info) or simulate_trade (for trade simulation). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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