prepare_sell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: unsigned-only, no signing or broadcasting, caller signs the returned tx, and no risk gate on sells. It omits slippage-default behavior, balance sufficiency checks, and whether a quote or error is returned, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the signing contract and the exemption from the risk gate. No filler or repetition; every clause adds selection or invocation 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the signing workflow, the absence of a risk gate, and the sizing model, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and safely. Return-value detail is unnecessary because the tool's contract is producing an unsigned transaction.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including percentOfHoldings defaulting to 100 for a full exit. The description reinforces the percentage-of-holdings intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (build an unsigned sell transaction) with the exact scope: a pump.fun position sized as a percentage of current holdings, for take-profit or manual exit. An agent can distinguish this from prepare_buy and from the execute_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly frames this as the unsigned-preparation step ('Like prepare_buy, this never signs or broadcasts anything — you sign the returned transaction yourself') and notes no risk gate applies to exits. It does not explicitly name execute_sell as the alternative or state when to prefer one over the other, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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