usdc_buy_with_native

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an irreversible spend. The description adds that auto-bridge is on by default and that behavior mirrors gdex.pro, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about slippage protection, bridge failure, or how to disable auto-bridge beyond what the schema's autoBridge/maxSourceSpendRaw fields already state.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and payment asset. 'as on gdex.pro' is a mildly external reference that earns little on its own, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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, real-funds destructive trade with no output schema, the description leaves failure modes, slippage/minTokenOut expectations, and the accountRef/gdex_connect prerequisite to the schema. The rich schema and destructive annotation keep it at minimum viable rather than inadequate, but a financial trade tool should do more.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is documented inline, including accountRef's dependency on gdex_connect and the autoBridge cap semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb+resource+payment mode: buying a token funded by the chain's native token, with examples of which natives (ETH, BNB, SOL). It implicitly separates itself from USDC-funded siblings like usdc_buy, but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is only implied: pay with native instead of USDC. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the closest alternatives (usdc_buy, buy_token, usdc_convert_native), nor any prerequisite such as connecting via gdex_connect. The auto-bridge default is a behavioral note, not guidance.

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