Buy (guarded)

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the two guard checks that must pass, the dry-run default when live trading is disabled, and the enumerated status outcomes plus decision.reasons. It does not cover irreversibility, slippage or failure modes after a partial execution, but the destructive/non-idempotent profile is already carried by annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its guard conditions before the outcome vocabulary. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, yet it still names the status vocabulary and points at decision.reasons for rationale, which is the key field an agent needs to interpret a blocked trade. Minor gaps around post-execution irreversibility and slippage keep it from a 5.

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 both mint (base58 mint address) and amount_sol (capped at MAX_TRADE_SOL) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the generic "with SOL", so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Buys the token with SOL through Jupiter") plus the guard conditions that gate execution. It implicitly names the sibling tools (token check and preflight) as prerequisites but never tells the agent to call check_token or preflight by name, so the sibling relationship is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

"Dry run unless the operator enabled live trading" gives the agent clear context for what will actually happen at invocation time, and the gating condition tells it when the call will be blocked. It stops short of explicit routing (e.g. "call preflight first", "use sell to exit"), leaving the sequencing to inference.

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