launch-token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Raydium launchpad and the optional initial buy, but does not disclose potential consequences such as transaction costs, irreversibility, or the need for a wallet with SOL. For a financial action, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the optional secondary action without wasting tokens.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the high-stakes nature of launching a token (involving financial transactions), this sparse description is insufficient. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash, token address), prerequisites (e.g., connected wallet, SOL balance), or potential risks. A more complete description would be necessary for an agent to use this safely and effectively.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema; the mention of 'initial buy' loosely connects to initial_buy_amount and minimum_token_out, but the schema already explains those parameters clearly. No additional semantics are provided for fields like name, symbol, or image_url.

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: launching a new meme token on Solana via the Raydium launchpad. It uses a specific verb ('launch') and resource ('meme token on Solana'), and the optional initial buy is also mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy-token and jupiter-swap, which handle buying/swapping existing tokens.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when the user wants to create/launch a new meme token. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on, for example, using buy-token for purchasing existing tokens.

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