usdc_buy

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: default cross-chain bridging/top-up from the user's other chains, a spend cap via maxSourceSpendRaw, and the pending/requestId asynchronous outcome. It does not say what gets destroyed or what the success (non-pending) response contains, which for a destructive swap tool is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: action first, then the default funding behavior and its cap, then the pending-result follow-up. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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 10-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent could not learn elsewhere: cross-chain funding side effects and the pending/requestId flow. It leaves the immediate-success return shape unstated, but the async path — the one that requires agent action — is covered.

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 10 parameters including decimals, defaults, and the minTokenOutRaw derivation. The description only re-emphasizes autoBridge's default and the maxSourceSpendRaw cap, adding little beyond what the schema states; 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 concrete verb+resource ("Buy a token") plus the payment asset (USDC), which implicitly separates it from usdc_buy_with_native and generic buy_token. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the payment-currency phrasing.

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?

Gives clear operational context: automatic funding is on by default, and a pending result must be followed with usdc_wait_for_trade — an explicit next-step routing to a sibling. It lacks any 'when not to use this' guidance (e.g. versus usdc_buy_with_native or gdex_execute_trade) and states no prerequisite such as obtaining a quote first.

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