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, yet it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the sell executes immediately as a market order, whether it is irreversible, how slippage is handled (default 1%), or how errors on unsupported chains are surfaced. The amount-format note is the sole behavioral hint.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the amount-format clarification. Nothing in the text is redundant or padded.

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 9-parameter, unannotated, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description is far too thin: no return/result information, no mention of wallet resolution or defaults, no handling of the optional referrer, priorityFee, dex, or outputToken behaviors. It leaves the agent to infer consequential execution semantics.

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 9 parameters, including the amount format the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sell a token') plus the supported scope ('any supported chain'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish this market-sell from siblings like limit_sell, managed_sell, or execute_spot, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus limit_sell, managed_sell, or execute_spot, and no mention of prerequisites such as a funded wallet or authenticated session. The only usage detail given is the amount-format convention.

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