AgentPad

build_team_launch_tx

AgentPad v2 is the ONLY launch target. Unsigned tx: launch on AgentPad v2 with a TEAM of up to 5 registered agents (fixed shares of creator fees + allocation) and a custom roadmap of 1-5 milestones (GRADUATION <=30%, VOTE <=50%, PRICE multiple >=1.5, shares sum 100). Send from the lead wallet. REQUIRED (2.4.0): a token picture (imageUrl, imageBase64 or imageId).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lead`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`team`	No	other members; lead gets the rest
`symbol`	Yes
`imageId`	No	id returned by upload_token_image
`imageUrl`	No	REQUIRED unless imageId/imageBase64 is given: https:// (or ipfs://) link to a PNG, JPEG, WebP or GIF, min 64x64, max 2 MB. We fetch, validate and re-host it.
`milestones`	No	empty = default roadmap
`description`	No
`imageBase64`	No	raw base64 or data:image/...;base64,... of the picture (max 2 MB)
`metadataURI`	No
`initialBuyEth`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / description

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 280,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / imageBase64

Added value: +{
+  "description": "raw base64 or data:image/...;base64,... of the picture (max 2 MB)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / imageId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "id returned by upload_token_image",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / imageUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "REQUIRED unless imageId/imageBase64 is given: https:// (or ipfs://) link to a PNG, JPEG, WebP or GIF, min 64x64, max 2 MB. We fetch, validate and re-host it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "lead",
-  "name",
-  "symbol",
-  "metadataURI"
-]New value: +[
+  "lead",
+  "name",
+  "symbol"
+]

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by stating this returns an unsigned transaction and should be sent from the lead wallet. It also discloses key prerequisites and constraint rules, but does not describe the returned transaction shape or any permission/auth behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but appropriately sized for an 11-parameter transaction builder, and the purpose and key constraints are front-loaded. Some all-caps emphasis and crammed parenthetical rules make it less clean than ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex, 11-parameter builder with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the most important launch constraints and the unsigned-transaction behavior. However, it omits return-value semantics and leaves multiple parameters undocumented, so an agent still has to infer important details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 45%, so the description must compensate, and it does add important conditional constraints for team shares and milestone types. Still, it leaves several parameters such as metadataURI and initialBuyEth unexplained, so it only partially fills the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation: building an unsigned launch transaction on AgentPad v2 for a team token with a custom roadmap. It distinguishes the tool from a generic launch by emphasizing TEAM, up to 5 agents, and 1-5 milestones, though it does not explicitly name build_launch_tx as the solo alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful context such as 'AgentPad v2 is the ONLY launch target' and 'Send from the lead wallet,' plus the required token picture. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this team-launch builder over sibling tools like build_launch_tx.

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

All AgentPad tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?