AnchorPad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds modest context about what is accessed (coins, links, and unclaimed creator earnings) but does not disclose anything further such as response shape or whether earnings data may be zero/stale. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the key subject ('A wallet's coins on AnchorPad') and packs the relevant data types (links, unclaimed creator earnings) without waste. Slightly more context would be nice, but it is appropriately sized.

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, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves details open: what exactly 'links' refers to, the response shape, and the meaning of 'unclaimed creator earnings' in this context are not specified. An agent gets the gist but not full situational 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains the wallet address and the agent-key behavior. The description adds little beyond confirming the wallet context ('A wallet's coins'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description identifies a specific resource (a wallet's coins on AnchorPad) and the exact data returned (links, unclaimed creator earnings), going beyond the title 'My coins and earnings.' It is not a tautology, though the controlling verb is only implied ('view'/'get') rather than stated, and it does not explicitly contrast with siblings beyond content type.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like anchorpad_prepare_claim, anchorpad_prepare_trade, or anchorpad_pairs. There is no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives; an agent must infer the tool's role purely from its name and sibling names.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the semantics of the two returned flags (launchBuy, tradeHere) and enumerating the closed set of asset classes, which is consistent with the openWorldHint=false constraint. No behaviors mentioned contradict the annotations.

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 sentences with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. The category enumeration is compact and the field-semantics sentence earns its place since no output schema exists. The informal ellipsis '(BTC, ETH, ZEC, TAO, NEAR, ...)' is slightly sloppy but not harmful.

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, parameterless, read-only tool, the description covers the essential ground: what the result contains and what the boolean flags mean. Since there is no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value explanation. The only missing piece is an explicit statement that the list is global/not coin-filtered, and how these pairs feed into the launch/trade flow.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately focuses on output domains instead of inputs, clarifying what the returned pairs represent. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the list is global (no per-coin input), though the empty schema implies this.

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 ('List') and resource (the assets an AnchorPad coin can be paired with), then enumerates concrete categories (SOL, stablecoins, crypto, Solana tokens, memes, tokenized stocks). This unambiguously distinguishes it from all five siblings, which are action-oriented (prepares, claim, launch, trade, status) rather than lookup-oriented.

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 read-only lookup nature and the mention of 'launch' ('whether a first buy can be included in the launch') imply it is used when configuring a launch or pair selection, which separates it from siblings like anchorpad_prepare_trade and anchorpad_my_coins. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative; the routing is left 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?

Annotations provide no behavioral details (all hints are false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a sign link and that nothing happens until the user approves it in their wallet, making the non-executing nature explicit. It also mentions the cost (network fee only), which is critical for an agent to know. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with all essential information. It front-loads the primary action, then the condition, the return value, the side-effect (nothing happens until approval), the cost, and a pointer to a related tool. Every clause contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is an exemplar of concise, structured tool documentation.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, the approval requirement, the cost, and a prerequisite check. It does not describe error conditions or detailed sign-link usage, but those are beyond the scope of a prepare action and are not necessary for an agent to call it correctly. The tool's simplicity and the description's clarity make it complete.

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 has no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. With zero parameters, the description has no need to explain parameter semantics, so the baseline is 4. The description does add context about the wallet that approves (the agent's wallet) and the return of a sign link, which indirectly informs how the tool is invoked but is not parameter-specific. It fully suffices for a parameterless 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: preparing a claim of creator earnings for every coin in the approving wallet. It specifies the action (prepare claim), the resource (creator earnings on coins), and the condition (wallet approval). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on earnings claims, while siblings like prepare_launch, prepare_trade, and request_status handle different operations. The phrase 'See anchorpad_my_coins first' further clarifies its relationship to the read-only query tool.

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 explicitly instructs users to check anchorpad_my_coins first to see what is unclaimed, providing a clear prerequisite and usage context. It also notes that the action costs only the network fee, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_launch or prepare_trade, though those are semantically distinct enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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 description discloses that the tool only returns a sign link and nothing happens until the user approves it in their wallet, which is a crucial asynchronous behavior. It also discloses economic consequences (creator earns 0.4%, user pays ~0.027 SOL rent plus first buy) and the image fallback behavior. These details go far beyond the annotations, which carry no behavioral hints.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the approval flow and consequences, and the third covers costs and image guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the 10-parameter schema and absence of output schema, the description covers the essential flow: sign link, wallet approval, creator role, fees, and costs. It could go further by mentioning that post-approval status can be tracked via anchorpad_request_status, but this is a minor omission for a launch-prepare 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the image parameter (allowed formats, size limit, fallback to user-provided image on approval page), for pair (explicitly drawn from anchorpad_pairs), and clarifies first_buy as part of the launch transaction. This enriches parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool prepares a new Solana coin on AnchorPad, paired with an asset from anchorpad_pairs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on launch preparation and returning a sign link. The verb 'prepare' plus the resource and the sign-link flow make the purpose unmistakable.

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 context for when to use the tool: to launch a new coin, and it explicitly references anchorpad_pairs for the pairing asset. It does not name alternatives like anchorpad_prepare_trade or specify when not to use it, but the sibling list and pairing reference make the intended use clear enough.

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?

Discloses a crucial non-execution behavior: 'Returns a sign link... nothing happens until they approve it in their wallet.' It also adds the approval-page detail of a live price and 3% slippage limit. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only say readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is false.

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 sentences with a clear order: purpose first, then the sign-link behavior, then parameter semantics and slippage. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

Covers purpose, return concept (sign link), user approval requirement, and slippage behavior. It doesn't specify the exact format of the sign link or error conditions, but with no output schema and a clear call flow, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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%, but the description adds essential meaning absent from the schema: amount is in the pair asset for a buy (e.g., 0.1 SOL) and in coins for a sell. This resolves a real unit ambiguity that the schema's 'plain number' description leaves open.

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-resource pair: 'Prepare a buy or sell of an AnchorPad coin on its bonding curve.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_claim and prepare_launch, which are different operations even though they share the same domain.

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 makes the trade context explicit—buy or sell on the bonding curve—and clarifies amount units for both sides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can select this tool over siblings without further 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?

Annotations only mark the tool as read-only; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: status semantics, 24-hour link expiration, and the no-id fallback of listing the last 10 requests. It stops short of describing the exact response shape, but for a simple read-only status tool this is largely sufficient.

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 cover the primary status check, the meaning of each status, expiration behavior, and the no-id fallback. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming the response structure, but the described statuses and fallback behavior make the tool's behavior sufficiently complete.

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 already documents id as a request id returned by a prepare tool, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the behavior when id is absent, which directly clarifies the optional parameter's semantics 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a prepared request was approved and enumerates the three possible statuses: open, done, or expired. It also explains the no-id variant, making the operation unambiguous and distinguishing it from the prepare_* and list sibling tools.

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 implicitly frames use as 'after a prepare tool returns a request id' and explains what happens when id is omitted. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for status checks.

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