Paid2Call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers the highest-value facts: no on-chain side effects, a 24-hour draft expiry, and a hard input rule (image_url is refused, no URL fetching, image must be square and under 1 MB). Auth requirements, fees, and whether repeat calls create duplicate drafts are not addressed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and the no-on-chain guarantee, then uses a compact bullet-style block for the two parameters that most need examples, and closes with return values. Every sentence earns its place; the reward_levels example is dense but justified for a free-form nested array.

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 15-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves most configuration surface (hold_minutes, callers_share_pct, first_buy_sol, fomo_bonus/bonus_every) unexplained, so an agent cannot set sensible values. It does cover returns (signing_url, draft_id) and expiry, which is why it is not a 1, but it is not adequate to the complexity.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains reward_levels (with a concrete example) and image_base64 plus the image_url refusal, but leaves name, symbol, twitter, website, telegram, description, fomo_bonus, bonus_every, hold_minutes, first_buy_sol, callers_share_pct and minimum_position_usd completely undefined.

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 ('Prepare a token launch') and immediately scopes it with 'Nothing is created on-chain', which distinguishes it from the on-chain sibling prepare_launch_transactions that it also names. An agent can tell what it produces (a draft) without opening the schema, though the relationship to get_launch_status/get_launch_options is left implicit.

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 clear routing rule: humans get a signing_url to review and sign on paid2call.com, agents with their own wallet should look at prepare_launch_transactions. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to an alternative. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use (e.g. no draft needed if the launch already exists), so it is not a full 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a result cap (max 20), a visibility restriction ('that Paid2Call can see'), and the rule that only callouts mentioning paid2call.com are paid. It omits what is returned per callout, ordering/truncation behavior beyond the cap, and any auth or address-format requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and the cap. The payment-condition sentence is arguably tangential but earns its place by clarifying result meaning, 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 output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description should say more about the returned callout structure and parameter formats. It covers the important cap and paid-callout semantics but leaves the agent guessing about return shape and input format.

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 0% and neither 'mint' nor 'wallet' is described in the schema, so the description has to compensate. 'This token' and 'the wallet's' implicitly map to the two required params, but no address format, chain, or casing guidance is given, leaving the mapping inferential.

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 and resource ('find' + the wallet's pump.fun callouts for this token) and scopes the result. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_paying_pools and register_for_payment by framing this as a wallet-scoped lookup of callouts.

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 hints at the downstream step ('each callout_id can be registered with register_for_payment') and states the payment condition, which implies usage. But it never says explicitly when to call this versus find_paying_pools or what prerequisites (e.g. the wallet being known to Paid2Call) apply.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the sort semantics and the downstream process, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or how the 'what one call pays by follower count' values are returned.

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?

Lead sentence is front-loaded and information-dense; the sort enumeration is compact. The trailing paid-callout workflow sentence is somewhat tangential to selecting this tool but still earns its place by clarifying 'paid'.

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 and no annotations, the description should carry more of the return-shape and safety burden; it gestures at the return ('what one call pays by follower count') but omits limit/search behavior and any auth or mutation context.

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 0% for all 3 params. The description compensates well for 'sort' by enumerating its allowed values and clarifying 'balance (most USDC first)', but leaves 'limit' and 'search' completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Tokens whose callout pool is open') and the payload (what one call pays by follower count), which separates it from sibling listing tools like find_my_callouts or get_pool. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by spelling out the end-to-end paid callout workflow and pointing at register_for_payment as the terminal step, but it never says when to call this versus find_my_callouts or get_pool, nor any exclusion conditions.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data returned but does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it requires permissions, or what side effects (if any) occur. This is a significant gap for a balance/claimability query.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and focused, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw here.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description should at least explain the wallet input and confirm the operation is non-mutating. With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 schema has one required parameter ('wallet') with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions the parameter or explains what value to supply. It refers to 'this caller' but does not connect that to the wallet argument, adding no meaning 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 specifies what the tool returns: what the platform owes the caller per token in USDC and what can be claimed now. It is clear about the resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like prepare_claim_transaction or get_fomo_bonus.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prepare_claim_transaction or other get_* tools. The implication that it is useful before claiming is not stated, leaving usage context to inference.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a gating condition and output content, which is useful, but omits authentication needs, error behavior, and explicit read-only status.

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 sentence plus a short fragment, front-loaded with the main notion of the bonus. It is concise and wastes little space, though the fragment could be integrated more smoothly.

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 tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, auth requirements, error cases, and return format specifics that an agent would need to invoke it reliably.

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 0% for both parameters. The description only indirectly references them ('this token' and 'the wallet's personal code'), providing no format, type, or constraint details to compensate.

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 resource (the +20% FOMO bonus for a token) and enumerates what is returned: the wallet's personal code, theses seen, and bonus amount. This is clear enough to distinguish it from register_fomo_bonus, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Only after a confirmed pump.fun reward') that signals when the tool is usable, but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or what to do if the condition is not met.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The phrasing 'what a launch can be set to' strongly implies a read-only, informational query with no side effects, which is useful signal, but it says nothing about permissions, whether values are enum-constrained, or freshness of the 'open right now' flag.

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 compact sentence with no filler that front-loads the primary return (valid launch settings). It slightly muddles two distinct concerns, configuration values and live availability, into one clause without signaling their relationship.

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 zero-argument getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch the shape of the response. It hints at two pieces of information but does not indicate the form of the options list or how the availability flag is expressed, leaving a modest gap for an agent consuming 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter information could add value here.

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 the resource (a Paid2Call launch's configuration) and the information returned (the set of allowed settings plus current launch availability). It is a clear informational tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely-related sibling get_launch_status, leaving some ambiguity about which to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite siblings like get_launch_status and prepare_launch_transactions that an agent must choose among. The agent is left to infer the call context from the purpose sentence alone.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the answer (on-chain?, listed on Paid2Call?, where to view it), which implies a read-only status probe, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what an unminted or unlisted token returns.

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?

One compact sentence with the post-launch context front-loaded and no filler. Slightly awkward in that it reads more like a list of return fields than a purpose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 must carry return semantics, and it partially does by naming the three things the caller learns. However, it omits the most important input (mint) and any error/not-yet-launched behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a status 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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'mint' parameter, and the description never explains it. A reader can infer 'mint' relates to the launched token, but its format (mint address vs. symbol) and constraints are left entirely undocumented.

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 (get/check status) tied to a specific resource (a launch), and the content of the check is spelled out: on-chain presence and Paid2Call listing. The phrase 'After a launch' implicitly separates it from pre-launch siblings like get_launch_options and create_launch_draft, though no sibling is named.

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 temporal qualifier 'After a launch' gives an implied when-to-use window and distinguishes it from the pre-launch family, but there is no explicit statement of when-not-to-use or which alternative to pick if no launch has happened. Adequate but inferential.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the payload contents (rewards, rules, balance, recent payments, registration open), which conveys the read-only nature and result shape, but says nothing about permissions, freshness, or whether the caller must be affiliated with the pool.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the payload contents enumerated after the colon. No wasted words, though it reads as a content list rather than an action statement.

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 fetch with no output schema and no annotations, listing the returned fields partially compensates. However, the undefined 'mint' parameter and absent usage/auth context leave gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 single 'mint' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'One token's callout pool' implies the parameter identifies the token, but it never states that 'mint' is a token mint address or its expected format.

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 resource ('callout pool') scoped to one token and enumerates what it exposes (rewards, rules, balance, recent payments, registration status). The verb is only implied by 'get_pool,' but the content list makes the purpose concrete and distinguishable from siblings like find_paying_pools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find_my_callouts or get_launch_status. The agent must infer that this is the detail-view for a pool from the description alone.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the signing format (signMessage, UTF-8, base58 signature), per-action expiry windows, and the requirement to pass back the returned issued_at unchanged. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, keeping it below a 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a tight per-action list where each line adds a distinct requirement. No filler sentences; every clause 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?

For a 5-parameter, 0%-schema-coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action semantics, required companion parameters, and validity windows, and it hints at the return value (the text plus issued_at). The missing pieces are the wallet parameter's contract and how issued_at is actually supplied, which are non-trivial gaps.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps action, mint, callout_id, and event_id to concrete per-action requirements. wallet's expected meaning (creator wallet holder for launch) is only implied, and issued_at is referenced as a value to pass even though no such input parameter exists in the schema, which introduces a small ambiguity.

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 precise verb+resource: it returns the exact UTF-8 text a wallet must sign before an action, and enumerates the three action values with their individual requirements. It is easy to distinguish from the transaction-preparation siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 clearly broken out per action: what each action proves or registers, which parameters it needs (mint/callout_id for queue, mint/event_id for fomo_bonus), and the 10- vs 15-minute validity windows. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it falls 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful traits: this only prepares the transaction (it does not send), the wallet pays a tiny network fee, and a follow-up call to report_claim_sent is required. It doesn't cover transaction expiry, required permissions, or idempotency, but the key behavioral contract is conveyed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the audience condition and ending with the alternative. Little waste, though the Solana/URL details could be trimmed slightly.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter coverage, yet the description supplies the end-to-end flow and what the returned transaction is for. The main gap is the format/shape of the prepared transaction and the parameter types.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies wallet is the caller's own wallet and mint is the token being claimed, adding some meaning, but gives no format (e.g. base58 pubkey) or validity constraints. Partial compensation only.

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+resource: it prepares the claim transaction for one token's balance, distinct from siblings like report_claim_sent and submit_signed_transaction. The audience qualifier ('for a caller agent with its own wallet') is clear, though it doesn't name competing siblings directly.

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 clear sequential workflow (sign it, send it to Solana yourself, then call report_claim_sent) and names an alternative path for humans (the claims URL). It stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used, e.g. for agents without their own wallet.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that output is base64 and unsigned, that submission order matters, that each transaction must confirm before proceeding, and that the wallet pays network fees plus the first buy. Missing only edge behaviors such as expiry of the challenge, retry semantics, or what happens if a transaction fails mid-sequence.

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?

Three short blocks, front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisites, then return/sequencing behavior. Every sentence carries information; formatting is dense but readable rather than padded.

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 4-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite auth material, return shape, ordering requirements, and fee responsibility. It stops short of describing multi-transaction failure handling, which is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains wallet (the agent's own wallet), and the provenance/meaning of challenge and signature via get_signing_message(action="launch"), and hints that draft_id references an existing draft. It offers no format detail for draft_id or challenge/signature, leaving half the parameters only partially grounded.

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: 'build the launch transactions from a draft', and scopes the audience to agents holding their own Solana wallet. That framing implicitly separates it from prepare_claim_transaction and prepare_launch_transactions-adjacent siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 the prerequisite chain ('challenge/signature: from get_signing_message(action="launch") signed by wallet') and the follow-up step ('submit IN ORDER with submit_signed_transaction, waiting for each to confirm'). This is clear operational context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or failure/branch guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 3% fee and PUMP pair context, which is real behavioral information, but it omits whether this is purely a read-only calculation, what permissions or state it needs, and how the result is derived.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it earns its place without waste.

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, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more work. It explains the quote concept and the alternate input modes but says nothing about the returned value's form or the conditions under which the quote is valid.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Give sol or percent_of_supply' signals that the two parameters are alternative input modes, which is genuinely useful, but it does not state units, valid ranges, precedence if both are supplied, or behavior when neither is given.

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 conveys the resource and result — a quote of how much supply a creator's first buy receives — which is clear enough for an agent working from the name 'quote_first_buy'. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no sibling computes a similar quote, so differentiation is less critical here.

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 text gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. 'Give sol or percent_of_supply' is input instruction rather than usage context, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for pre-launch sizing.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the signing prerequisite implied by the signature flow, which is valuable behavioral context, but it omits permissions, idempotency/reversibility, and what the registration actually mutates.

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, prerequisite front-loaded after the purpose. 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?

No annotations, no output schema, and five required parameters with zero documentation in either schema or description. The workflow hint helps but leaves an agent without the parameter meaning needed to actually construct the call.

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 0% and none of the five required parameters (mint, wallet, event_id, issued_at, signature) are explained. Only the signature's origin is loosely implied by the signing-message instruction; mint/event_id/issued_at semantics are entirely undocumented.

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 (link/register) and resource (FOMO thesis to wallet) plus the outcome (+20% bonus), which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_fomo_bonus and from register_for_payment. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to disambiguate against.

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 clear prerequisite: sign get_signing_message(action="fomo_bonus") first, which routes the agent to a specific sibling and action. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of what happens if the signature is missing/expired.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: payment is platform-executed and gated on verification of purchase, call, followers and hold. But it omits mutation-relevant behavior such as idempotency, whether registration can be reverted, what the signature authorizes, and error/failure outcomes.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action and the prerequisite front-loaded; no filler. It could be slightly tighter, but every sentence carries information.

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 five-parameter, fully undocumented mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: no parameter meaning, no idempotency/replay guidance, no indication of what a successful or failed registration looks like.

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 0% across five required parameters, so the schema gives no semantics at all. The description only indirectly touches 'signature' via the signing step and never explains mint, wallet, callout_id, or issued_at (notably the timestamp's freshness/expiry meaning). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Register a callout to be paid from the token's pool') and ties it to a sibling tool by naming get_signing_message as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast itself with lookalikes such as register_fomo_bonus or prepare_claim_transaction, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 ordering constraint: sign get_signing_message(action="queue") first, before calling this. That is actionable context. However it never states when not to use this tool, or how it relates to the other registration/claim siblings beyond that one dependency.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one side effect ('the balance shows it as paying'), but says nothing about required permissions, idempotency (what happens if the same signature is reported twice), whether the transaction is verified on-chain, or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action comes first and the purpose clause follows. It is efficiently sized, though slightly terse given how much it leaves undocumented.

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 four-required-parameter mutation-style report with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits parameter meaning, return value, and the relationship to the prepare/submit siblings, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% across four required parameters (wallet, mint, signature, days), and the description names none of them. The agent gets no format, unit, or meaning information for any parameter — notably unclear items like 'days' and the expected 'signature' format are left entirely unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb ('Tell') plus the resource ('a claim transaction was sent') and even states the resulting effect on the balance. This distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_claim_transaction and submit_signed_transaction, which act rather than report. It falls short of 5 only because 'Paid2Call' and the surrounding workflow are left implicit.

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 guidance on when to call this versus prepare_claim_transaction, submit_signed_transaction, or get_caller_balance. The agent must infer that this is a post-submission bookkeeping call from the phrase 'was sent', with no prerequisites or ordering stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and discloses solid context: the server adds the token address signature, the 3-minute validity window, and a default 60-second confirmation wait. It still omits failure/rejection behavior and idempotency, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by constraints and the confirmation default. No filler, though the second sentence packs two distinct facts (provenance and signature) without separating their implications.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers key operational constraints but leaves three undocumented parameters and the response/failure surface unexplained. Adequate to call, but an agent lacks guidance on error handling and parameter values.

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 0% for all 3 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not: transaction_base64 and last_valid_block_height receive no explanation. Only wait_for_confirmation is partially addressed via the 'waits up to 60 seconds by default' sentence.

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: relaying a signed launch transaction, scoped to 'launch' which differentiates it from claim-path siblings like prepare_claim_transaction and report_claim_sent. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling produces the transaction or contrast itself against the claim submission flow, leaving some ambiguity.

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 3-minute acceptance window for transactions 'prepared by Paid2Call' implies a prerequisite step (prepare/sign) and bounds when this tool is valid, which is genuinely useful. But it never names the alternative or prerequisite tool, nor states what to do when the window has expired, so usage is only implied.

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