TokenOS Token Launch Planner

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the scope of the comparison (six named dimensions) but nothing about behavior such as static vs live data, caching, or freshness, which matters for a pricing/curve comparison.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and the platform list front-loaded, followed by the comparison axes. Every clause carries information and there is no 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description's job is mainly to set expectations about content, which listing the compared dimensions does well. It stops short of noting whether figures are illustrative vs live, a minor gap for a cost/curve comparison.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty input schema is consistent with a static comparison tool.

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 states a specific verb (compare) and enumerates the exact resources being compared (Pump.fun/Solana, pons/Robinhood Chain, plain SPL mint) plus the comparison axes, so the agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like token_launch_costs, which likely overlaps on the cost axis.

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?

Usage is only implied: by listing the platforms and dimensions it covers, an agent can infer this is the cross-platform decision aid rather than a single-platform cost lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to plan_token_launch or token_launch_costs.

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

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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about the shape of the generated artifact (costs, preparation, steps, checklist, pitfalls, doc link), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the verb and deliverable, with zero filler. The colon-delimited content list is dense but readable, though slightly list-shaped rather than prose.

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 read-only generator with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers both the action and the resulting artifact. It lacks any caveat about scope limits or how the siblings' cost/platform data relate to the plan it produces.

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%, including enum explanations and defaults (project, solana/Pump.fun), so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Produce a step-by-step launch plan for a token") and enumerates the deliverable sections, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like token_launch_costs, which the listed "costs" section clearly overlaps.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives such as token_launch_costs or compare_launch_platforms. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the mention of "costs" in an otherwise planning-oriented output list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the optional-initial-buy nuance; it never says what the estimate includes (gas, rent, platform fees) or what currency the result is denominated in.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and appends the only qualifier that matters. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered read-only estimator this is adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what the returned figure represents (total cost breakdown, currency, whether it varies by chain). That omission leaves an agent guessing at the shape of the result.

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 50%: initial_buy is documented ('Optional initial buy in SOL or ETH'), while chain relies on a self-explanatory enum. The description restates the optionality of initial_buy and names the two chains, but adds no format or unit details beyond the schema, so it neither compensates for the gap nor is penalized for it.

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?

States a specific verb (estimate), resource (total launch cost), and scope (Solana or Robinhood Chain, optional initial buy), so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings compare_launch_platforms or plan_token_launch, leaving the agent to infer the division of labor.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'including an optional initial buy' phrasing hints this is a pre-launch cost check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools. An agent could reasonably confuse this with compare_launch_platforms.

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