ponzu_swap_eth_for_tokens

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the swap fee structure (1% normal, 20% first hour decaying) and the underlying contract call. However, it omits other behavioral details like authorization needs, gas costs, or side effects.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the fee detail and contract reference are provided efficiently.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and fee dynamics but lacks context about on-chain requirements (gas, network), necessary conditions (token must be in pool), and return value (no output schema). Adequate but with 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (ethAmount, tokenAddress, slippage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Buy tokens on PonzuSwap DEX by swapping ETH,' specifying the verb (Buy), resource (tokens), and mechanism (swap ETH). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ponzu_swap_tokens_for_eth' by implying this is the ETH-to-tokens direction.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for swapping tokens for ETH, use the sibling). Usage is implied by the name and description, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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