managed_purchase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that the payload is AES-encrypted and routed through the GDEX backend. It omits auth/session requirements, whether the trade is irreversible once submitted, error/failure behavior, and any rate or size constraints on a real-money buy.

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 action and its channel are stated immediately. Nothing is redundant.

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 financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence leaves real gaps: no prerequisite chain, no indication of what a successful call returns (e.g., a trade id for managed_trade_status), and no failure semantics. The core purpose is nonetheless conveyed.

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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters (tip, chainId, slippage, computedData) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or how computedData is produced.

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?

Names a specific verb (Submit) and a well-scoped resource (an encrypted managed-custody buy trade via the GDEX backend), which cleanly separates it from managed_sell and the generic buy_token. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g., that a managed session via managed_sign_in and a payload from build_trade_payload are presumably needed first), and no mention of managed_trade_status for follow-up. The context is only implied by the word 'managed-custody'.

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