snipe_buy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 0.5% platform fee, the DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY requirement, and the return value (tx hash and tokens received). These go beyond the schema and provide critical behavioral context for an agent, though it does not cover failure modes or slippage behavior.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core action and mechanism, the second covers the fee, and the third lists the env var requirement and return value. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately includes the return format ('tx hash and tokens received'). It also covers prerequisites (env var) and costs (fee). It could optionally mention potential failure conditions or slippage application, but for a simple buy operation, the current coverage is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (token, eth_amount, slippage_percent). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond global fee info, which is not tied to any single parameter. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Buy a token on the OBSD LaunchPad with ETH via PlatformRouter.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_launches or multi_quote, which serve monitoring and quoting purposes. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 through its action-oriented phrasing ('Buy a token...') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references. The context (LaunchPad, ETH, fee) gives clear situational hints, but explicit guidance is missing.

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