prepare_token_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Prepare' usefully implies this does not itself execute a transaction, and it discloses a dependency on live config, but it says nothing about whether an approval step follows, what permissions are needed, or whether the prepared payload is ephemeral.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 9-parameter, 6-required mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits most parameter meaning, the approval flow, and any indication of what is returned.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only names two of them (image_base64, quote_address). Required fields such as name, symbol, description, and image_type are left entirely unexplained, and the stray 'x' parameter is 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Prepare a Standard Base o1 token launch'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like prepare_buy_token and prepare_erc20_transfer. It does not contrast itself against the closest alternative, but the purpose is unmistakably a launch-preparation step.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a base64 image and a quote address from live config') that implies a setup flow, and 'live config' loosely points at get_o1_config. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the other prepare_* tools, nor what to do with the result (e.g. pass to request_wallet_approval).

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