sellMemeToken

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'sell' without explaining consequences (e.g., irreversible transaction, fees, authorization needs, rate limits), making it inadequate for a mutation tool with potential financial implications.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but as per scoring rules, it earns full marks for brevity and structure.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, failing to provide a complete context for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides no information about 'token' or 'tokenValue' (e.g., format, units, examples), leaving both parameters undocumented and unclear in meaning.

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 'sell meme token' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'sell' and resource 'meme token', but lacks detail on what selling entails (e.g., on which platform, to whom) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'transferBEP20Token' or 'pancakeSwap', which might involve similar token transactions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a wallet), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'buyMemeToken' or 'pancakeSwap', leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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