thryx_buy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses gasless execution via paymaster, slippage protection, and the need for wallet ETH to cover the trade value while gas is sponsored. This gives an agent awareness of the payment model and potential failure due to insufficient funds. It stops short of describing response format or other failure modes, but covers the most critical 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, each contributing essential information: purpose, key features, and prerequisites. The most important action ('Buy a token with ETH') is front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 buy operation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, payment/gas model, and required inputs (API key, wallet ETH). It lacks details on return values or transaction confirmation, but given no output schema and the presence of a clear input schema, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the amount being the ETH trade value and the need for matching wallet balance, which reinforces the purpose of the 'amount' parameter. It does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with 'Buy a token with ETH', which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like thryx_sell by specifying 'buy' and mentioning ETH as the payment asset. The added features (gasless, slippage protection) are secondary but do not dilute the purpose.

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 gives important usage conditions: requires THRYX_API_KEY and enough ETH to cover the trade value, with gas sponsored separately. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives like thryx_sell or thryx_launch, nor does it state when not to use it. The action is implied by the verb 'buy', but exclusions are absent.

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