loot_buy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: it performs a quote before executing, applies slippage, uses fixed gas (5,000,000) and never estimates, and requires a specific environment variable. This exceeds what one might expect from a typical buy tool, though it does not detail failure modes or confirmation behavior.

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 concise (two sentences) yet packs essential details: purpose, quoting behavior, slippage, gas, and key requirement. The main purpose is front-loaded, and no superfluous wording exists.

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 buy transaction with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: quote-before-execute, slippage, gas, and key requirement. It does not explicitly explain token address format or deadline semantics, but those are inferable from their names and types. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 eth_in has a description). The description adds value for slippage_bps by specifying a default (200) and explains that the trade executes at quote minus slippage. It does not add semantics for token or deadline_seconds. Since coverage is low, this partially compensates but leaves gaps for two parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Buy'), a specific resource ('LOOT token with ETH'), and the mechanism ('through the deployed router'). It cleanly distinguishes from siblings like loot_sell (selling) and loot_claim (claiming) by explicitly naming the action and asset.

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 explains the internal process ('Quotes the exact trade first via eth_call') and the slippage handling, which implies when this tool is appropriate (when buying LOOT). It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context of buying is clear from the name and purpose. It also notes a prerequisite (private key), which is a practical usage hint.

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