Submit an encrypted managed-custody sell trade via the GDEX backend to execute custody-based token sales with optional slippage and priority fee.
Submit an encrypted managed-custody sell 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'encrypted' and 'managed-custody' but omits critical details such as authentication requirements, irreversibility of the trade, error behavior, and whether a separate status check is needed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, directly stating the action and backend. However, it is so terse that it omits useful context, keeping it from a perfect 5.
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 trade execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites like building the encrypted payload or checking trade status via managed_trade_status, leaving the agent without workflow context.
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. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('encrypted managed-custody sell trade via the GDEX backend'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like managed_purchase or sell_token, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools. It does not mention when to choose this over managed_purchase, sell_token, or limit_sell, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.