pons_quote_buy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly explains the behavior: local exact curve math, cross-checking against an on-chain eth_call, and disclosing specific outputs (tokensOut, fee legs, price impact, cross-check result). It also mentions the clamp at reserved allocation and live snipe tax, giving agents insight into the calculation's nature.

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 a single, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details without redundancy. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it lists the return values and the key computational aspects. It implies a read-only operation via 'Quote' and covers the main behavioral nuances. Minor gaps like error conditions or execution limitations could be added, but the description is adequate for safe invocation.

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 parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'snipe tax' but the schema already explains recipient's role in pricing it. Thus, no added value beyond baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Quote') and resource ('bonding-curve buy'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on buy operations. It details the exact math and cross-check, making the tool's function 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 quote buy operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like pons_quote_sell or pons_quote_swap. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the selection inference to the tool name and context.

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