invest_usdc_to_gblin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns sequential calldata steps, includes minOut protection against MEV, and never accepts 0 minOut. This is good transparency for a calldata generator, though it does not detail authorization or error handling.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then adds critical safety detail about MEV protection. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter calldata generator with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the output format (two steps) and a safety feature. It could be improved by mentioning the exact return type (e.g., an array of transactions), but is sufficient as is.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('USDC amount to invest (decimal string)'). The tool description adds context about USDC earnings and internal minOut values but does not significantly enhance the parameter's meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states it generates calldata to convert USDC to GBLIN, listing two specific steps (approve and buy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swap_gblin_to_usdc_jit (opposite direction) and quote_safe_swap (quote generation). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for converting USDC earnings into GBLIN for treasury accumulation, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., swap_gblin_to_usdc_jit) or when not to use (e.g., if user wants to execute directly). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative mentions.

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