distribution_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the API deploys a clone, settles payment via x402, and leaves owner transactions unsent, plus the $50 cost. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and prerequisites without ambiguity.

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 compact—two sentences—with the core action and outputs front-loaded. It includes cost and workflow details without unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns (three transaction types) and the overall workflow (API deploys, owner sends), which is sufficient for a high-level call. It lacks specifics about output format or transaction structure, but given no output schema and the nature of the tool, the gaps are minor.

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 each parameter already has a clear definition (e.g., token address, entries with cumulative amounts, optional name/deadline). The description adds no extra parameter details beyond reinforcing that entries are cumulative allocations, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action (deploy a cumulative Merkle token distributor on Base) and the output (approval, gross funding, and unpause transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like distribution_get or distribution_proof, which likely retrieve proofs or query existing distributions.

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 the use case (creating a new distributor) and notes that owner transactions remain unsent, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. Context is clear, but no exclusions or alternate tool references are given.

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