usdc_sell

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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only, destructive, and open-world. The description adds that settlement happens on the token's own chain with no auto-funding, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits failure modes, retry behavior (a sibling usdc_retry_sell exists), and slippage handling. Some value over annotations, not rich.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action front-loaded. The 'as on gdex.pro' reference is slightly opaque but does not bloat the text.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not cover prerequisites (apiKey/accountRef/session key auth flow), success/failure signaling, or how it relates to usdc_get_trade_quote and usdc_retry_sell. The rich schema carries most of the load, but the description leaves agent-facing gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already spells out (autoBridge, maxSourceSpendRaw, minUsdcOutRaw all documented there).

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 and receive USDC into the unified USDC wallet') plus the settlement scope. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like sell_token, managed_sell, or limit_sell, which an agent must choose between.

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 'no auto-funding, as on gdex.pro' clause implies a usage context that routes away from auto-funding flows, but it never explicitly says when to pick this over sell_token or managed_sell. No when-not guidance or alternative naming.

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