prepare_buy_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a financial transaction tool. 'Prepare' hints that the trade is not executed immediately, which is mild added value, but it omits whether wallet connection or prior approval is required, whether the quote can expire, and what side effects occur. Significant gaps remain.

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?

A single short sentence with the key constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the tool's importance and the surrounding transaction flow.

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 transaction-preparation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum describe prerequisites (wallet connection, upstream quote retrieval) and what 'prepared' output enables.

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 0% and there is one required parameter. The description repeats the parameter name and adds the qualifier 'live', implying the quote must not be stale — a small semantic addition — but it does not explain the expected format or how to obtain a valid quote ID.

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 names a specific verb (prepare) and resource (buy token) with the input source (live quote ID), so it is distinguishable from prepare_sell_token. However, 'prepare' is vague about what actually happens — whether it builds a transaction, reserves a quote, or requires wallet activity — leaving the agent to guess at the action's concrete effect.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not explain the relationship to siblings like get_swap_quote (presumably upstream) or request_wallet_approval (presumably downstream), nor state any prerequisite such as a connected wallet. Usage is only weakly implied by 'from a live quote ID'.

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