usdc_retry_sell

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, open-world write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the retry is idempotent because the original nonce is reused, and token/amount/chain/nonce are sourced from the backend's retry capability rather than passed in. It does not address permissions/session requirements or what happens to the original pending sell, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key guarantee, then the trigger condition. Dense but no filler; the second clause about re-quoting could be slightly clearer but every element earns its place.

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 retry operation with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the safety guarantee, and the source of the non-parameter inputs. It lacks only failure/edge-case guidance (e.g. what if the nonce was already consumed or the retry window closed).

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: requestId refers to the original sell request, and minUsdcOutRaw must come from a fresh usdc_get_trade_quote side sell. It also clarifies that the other trade details are not parameters at all but read from backend retry state.

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 (retry a stuck USDC sell) plus a distinguishing mechanism: in-place retry reusing the original transaction nonce so it cannot double-execute. This clearly separates it from usdc_sell and the other USDC siblings rather than restating the name.

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 an explicit trigger condition tied to named siblings: use when usdc_wait_for_trade returns needs_retry, or when usdc_get_funding_status shows retry.available. The agent knows exactly which prior observation selects this tool versus initiating a fresh sell.

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