buy_food

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

Description reveals it consumes USDC and produces LP, indicating a state change. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or whether it returns a transaction ID. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the key action and effect. No wasted words, though it could include more context in a structured way.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what LP is, how the conversion works, or any post-action state. An agent may lack sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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% and already describes both parameters clearly (food family enum and USDC amount with example). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the action (buy food from grocery store) and outcome (costs USDC, converts to LP). The verb 'buy' and resource 'food' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'buy_egg' implicitly, but could be more explicit about the difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'feed_baseling' or 'buy_egg'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having USDC balance) or context (e.g., feeding baselings). Agent may select incorrectly.

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