Sell

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false. The description adds valuable policy details beyond them: routing through Jupiter, preflight verdict reporting, execution despite a verdict, and dry-run default.

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, front-loaded with the action and key execution modes. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no filler.

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 destructive trade with annotations covering risk and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies the critical operational context: Jupiter routing, dry-run default, and preflight reporting. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both mint and amount_atomic are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb ('Sells') and resource ('the token for SOL through Jupiter'), making the action unambiguous. It also signals the exit use case, which distinguishes it from the buy sibling without needing to name it.

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?

It explains the operational context: dry run unless live trading is on, and never blocked by a verdict so a position can always be exited. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over buy/check_token/preflight, but the selling-versus-buying distinction is clear.

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