Submit an encrypted managed-custody buy trade via the GDEX backend, with optional slippage and priority fee settings.
Submit an encrypted managed-custody buy trade via the GDEX backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tip | No | Optional priority fee | |
| chainId | Yes | Chain ID for the trade | |
| slippage | No | Max slippage %. Default: 1 | |
| computedData | Yes | AES-encrypted trade payload with signed data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as a destructive, open-world write, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds conceptual context ('encrypted', 'managed-custody', 'via backend') that helps an agent understand it's submitting a pre-signed encrypted payload, but it does not explain what gets consumed/destroyed or auth prerequisites beyond that.
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, tight sentence with the resource and mechanism front-loaded, zero filler. It could be slightly more informative without losing concision, but nothing is wasted.
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 destructive write tool with no output schema, the description should explain what happens after submission (e.g., that managed_trade_status tracks the result) and any auth/session preconditions. Neither is present, leaving the agent unsure about follow-up and prerequisites.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including computedData and slippage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Submit an encrypted managed-custody buy trade via the GDEX backend' tells the agent this is a buy execution path. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like managed_sell, buy_token, limit_buy, or execute_spot, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 exclusions, and no mention of the alternative 'managed' tools. The agent is left to guess why it should pick this over limit_buy or execute_spot, or whether managed_trade_status is the follow-up.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.