loot_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it comprehensively: it states the escrow amount (0.01 ETH + dev buy), the contingent policy actions, the auto-cancel on failure with the exact refund split (0.009 ETH + dev buy back, factory keeps 0.001), and the environment needs. For a tool that moves funds, this level of failure-path and fee transparency is exceptional.

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?

Every clause earns its place — ceremony steps, policy branches, failure refund, fees, prerequisites — yet it is delivered as one dense ~130-word paragraph with no bullets or line breaks. Highly informative but harder to scan than the complexity warrants.

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 multi-step, fund-moving tool with nested params and zero annotations, the description covers process, contingency, funds flow, and readiness conditions thoroughly. The single meaningful gap is the return value: since there is no output schema, the agent is never told what a successful call yields (only the internal 'signed launch ticket' is mentioned).

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most complex params: policy is explained mode-by-mode, max_buyout_wei is contextualized as a hard budget against the live quote, and dev_buy_eth is tied into the escrow math. Rate-limited to 4 because plainly-named params (name, ticker, socials, description) get no added explanation, which is acceptable since they are self-evident.

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 precise verb+resource ('Launch a new LOOT token through the factory ceremony') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like loot_buy/loot_sell (trading existing tokens) and loot_claim_* (claiming rewards). The ceremony framing makes the tool's unique role in the family unambiguous.

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 policy modes (clean_only, tribute_ok, buyout) each get a behavioral consequence, giving an agent clear conditions for when each path fires. The prerequisites (LOOT_AGENT_PRIVATE_KEY, LOOT_API_URL) hint at readiness conditions. It doesn't explicitly say 'prefer loot_buy when trading an existing token, not this,' so it stops short of fully contrasting with siblings, but the mode explanations serve as strong situational guidance.

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