Sell a coin

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds the crucial facts an agent needs: it spends real funds from the server's wallet, requires user confirmation, and is simulated before being sent. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose, then parameter format, then the money-safety warning. No filler; the most consequential warning is placed prominently.

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 real-money mutation with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers safety and the amount parameter but omits what mint should contain (an address vs a symbol) and what slippage_pct does. An agent could still call it, but with avoidable ambiguity.

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 carries the burden. It explains the amount format well with concrete examples ("100%", "50%", "250000"), but leaves mint and slippage_pct entirely unexplained, including the 0.5–50 bounds and default of 100% for amount.

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?

Names a specific verb (sell) and resource (a coin), and scopes it to this server's wallet, which cleanly separates it from the sibling pump_buy. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Provides a clear precondition — confirm with the user before executing because it involves real money — and notes it is simulated before sending. It does not mention when to prefer this over related siblings such as pump_coin or pump_wallet, but the operational guidance is concrete.

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