fund-agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: the tool keeps a gas reserve, requires a preview/confirm step, and does not auto-pay AI providers. The statement 'the USDC stays in the wallet; it does not auto-pay Anthropic/OpenAI (fiat-only) or OpenRouter' is a clear and honest disclosure that prevents misuse.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then procedural details, then an honest caveat. Every sentence contributes value and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool is complex with 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers the main workflow, preview/confirm, gas reserve, and limitations. It does not explicitly describe what the final response contains (e.g., transaction signature), but given the detailed workflow and parameter coverage, the missing piece is minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of keep_sol ('keeping a gas reserve'), the confirm flow, and collect_first ('optionally collect pending pump.fun fees'). This enriches parameter understanding without contradicting the schema.

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 tool's purpose: to turn creator fees into an agent budget by optionally collecting pump.fun fees and swapping SOL to USDC via Jupiter. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings like collect-fees by describing the end-to-end workflow.

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 clear workflow guidance: 'Preview first (no confirm) — it shows the live quote; call with confirm: true after the user approves.' It also explains the 'Honest by design' behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus sibling tools like collect-fees or wallet, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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