Moonlauncher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the claim happens via a claimUrl the user signs in their own wallet, and Moonlauncher charges nothing for claims.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the read-only status and the core value, with no filler. Every clause (scope, claimUrl, wallet/launchId, fee policy) carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly names the key returned elements (claimable amount across coins and a claimUrl). It could be more explicit about the full response shape, but no essential calling information is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the mutual-alternative semantics the schema does not express: wallet and launchId are two ways to identify the same creator wallet. Format hints (base58, lch_ prefix) remain in 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?

States a specific read operation: how much pump.fun creator fee income a wallet can claim across every coin it created, plus a claimUrl. The resource and scope are unambiguous, though explicit differentiation from token_info and launch_status siblings is absent.

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?

Gives clear usage modes: pass the creator's wallet, or pass a launchId from launch_token to resolve that launch's wallet. It does not state when-not to use the tool or name a competing alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the call hits the chain every time (no caching), and it enumerates the terminal and intermediate states (awaiting_approval/awaiting_signature, submitted, confirmed, failed, expired). Coverage of return content is also useful given 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?

Front-loads the read-only read framing, then the state list and return fields in dense, information-bearing sentences. Slightly long for one sentence, but every clause (states, returns, re-poll guidance) carries weight.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it lists statuses, the mint, transaction signature, links, and post-confirmation artifacts. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 100% and the pattern/format for launchId are already in the schema. The description only adds that the id originates from launch_token, which is a marginal clarification rather than new syntax or semantics, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading where a launch created by launch_token currently stands. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like launch_token (creation) and start_launch without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context – 'It checks the chain on every call, so call it again to follow progress after the user signs' – which tells the agent to poll rather than cache the result. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the draft expires in 30 minutes, returns an approveUrl, touches no wallet, moves no funds, and requires the user to review and sign in their own wallet. This adds important safety and lifecycle context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, prerequisite, draft expiration, safety model, and final instruction are all stated without filler. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: prerequisite tool, draft expiration, returned approveUrl, wallet safety, and signing requirement. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds the process-level guidance that values should be user-confirmed and sourced from start_launch, but it does not add per-parameter syntax or edge cases beyond 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 states a specific action and resource: preparing a pump.fun token launch by creating a draft that returns an approveUrl. It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling start_launch by naming it as a prerequisite and explaining the draft/signing 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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: 'call start_launch first and ask its questions,' and it should be used only with details the user has confirmed. It also explains what must happen before the launch is finalized, so the agent knows when and how to invoke it.

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/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this while adding genuine context: what it returns (AskUserQuestion-shaped questions, per-first-buy cost estimates, field limits) and that a user confirmation step must precede launch_token. It does not describe failure modes or rate limits, so it stops short of 5.

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 safety profile is front-loaded in the first clause, then the trigger, then the inputs, then the return contract and next step. Four sentences, each carrying distinct routing or contract information with no padding.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the three return categories (questions, estimates, field limits). Combined with 100% schema coverage on 14 optional params, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 fields including limits and formats. The description adds only the framing that all inputs are optional pre-decisions and that estimates are keyed to first-buy choices; no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: it returns questions and cost estimates for a token launch, and explicitly says it 'creates nothing and moves no funds.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling launch_token by positioning itself as the first step before it, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this first when the user wants to launch a token'), an input rule ('Pass anything they have already decided'), and a follow-up condition ('Ask the questions and confirm the summary with the user before calling launch_token'). The alternative tool and the ordering constraint are both named.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that name/symbol live in an `untrusted` object and must be treated as data, a prompt-injection warning an agent would not otherwise have.

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?

Two tight sentences: the return payload is front-loaded, then the security caveat. 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 output schema, the description does the work of listing returned fields (bonding-curve progress, market cap, links, name/symbol), which is adequate for a simple one-param read tool. It falls short only on any mention of error/edge behavior (e.g., non-existent mints).

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% (a single `mint` param with base58/Solana address semantics documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 names a specific verb-less but clear resource operation: returning bonding-curve progress, market cap, links, and name/symbol for a pump.fun mint. It is easily distinguished from siblings like launch_token or creator_fees, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus the launch_* or creator_fees siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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