prepare_sell_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether 'prepare' produces an unsigned transaction, requires wallet connection, needs a subsequent request_wallet_approval, or is idempotent, leaving the mutation/side-effect profile unclear.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the input constraint is stated immediately. Its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true economy, keeping it just below top marks.

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 transactional preparation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is thin. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns, whether a wallet must be connected, or how the prepared result flows into approval and submission.

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 single quote_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers no help. The description adds a marginal qualifier by requiring the quote be 'live', but does not explain the ID's format or how it is obtained.

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 pairs a specific verb ('prepare') with a resource ('sell') and names its input ('live quote ID'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling prepare_buy_token beyond the buy/sell distinction.

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 phrase 'from a live quote ID' implies the prerequisite that a quote must first be obtained (via the sibling get_swap_quote) and must be fresh. Usage is only implied, with no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the downstream approval or signing step.

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