cpu_buy_lot

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses all key behavioral traits: atomic tx, cost components (price, transit fee, gas), auto-approval with 10% headroom, delivery timing, and permission to buy own lot. No contradictions.

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 detailed but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action and then explains nuances. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well structured.

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 covers prerequisites, process, cost preview, auto-approval, delivery, and finalization. It mentions the returned deliveryId. Lacks explicit error conditions but is adequate for a buy tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: for 'chain' it explains waypoint structure and scouting via cpu_next_hops; for 'lotId' and 'value' it provides context on sources and constraints (positive integer, ≤ remaining).

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 clearly states the verb ('Buy'), resource ('units from an OPEN lot'), and outcome ('delivered to your own cell'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cpu_quote_buy (preview) and cpu_create_lot (create).

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?

Provides explicit context: when to buy (from open lot), prerequisite (needs session), and related tools (cpu_quote_buy for preview, cpu_finalize_delivery for completion). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if lot is closed).

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