thryx_sell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing three non-obvious behaviors: gasless via paymaster, dual routing based on token status, and slippage protection. It omits potential details like prerequisites (approvals) or failure modes, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and help the agent set expectations.

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 short sentences, with the primary action first and supplementary details following. Every sentence delivers distinct information (what, gasless, routing/slippage), with no 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?

For a relatively simple sell tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview: purpose, execution mechanism, and protection. It does not explain the return value or requirements, but these are either implied or not critical given the tool's simplicity. Slightly more detail on prerequisites would improve completeness.

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 schema already provides descriptions for the required parameters (token address and amount as decimal string), covering 67% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the optional 'comment' parameter is left undocumented, though its purpose is fairly obvious from the name. This is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 a clear, specific action ('Sell a token for ETH') that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like thryx_buy. It also adds context about gasless execution and routing, reinforcing the tool's role without ambiguity.

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 establishes the tool's purpose clearly—selling tokens for ETH—which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., thryx_buy for purchases), leaving the agent to infer from context. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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