Buy Energy

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

The description discloses key behaviors: creates a market order, fills from pools, deducts balance. However, without annotations, it omits details on insufficient balance handling, response format, synchronicity, or fees. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity of a financial transaction tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential process but lacks details on errors, response, and prerequisites. It is mostly complete for a straightforward purchase.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new information beyond restating the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: purchasing TRON Energy for a target address via a market order. It specifies the resource type and that it deducts cost from the user's balance, distinguishing it from query tools like get_prices.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_available_resources or get_prices. It lacks prerequisites like checking balance or understanding pool availability.

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