create_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states 'Create a new ERC20 token'. It does not disclose whether this deploys a contract, requires funds, has irreversible side effects, or what happens on the blockchain. This leaves the agent guessing about the operational impact.

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 a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and every word earns its place.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is a single sentence. It does not explain parameter relationships, required contexts, return values, or side effects. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly in complex scenarios.

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% with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is minimal but adequate.

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 action ('Create') and the specific resource ('a new ERC20 token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mint_token or deploy_contract. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's core function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer create_token over deploy_contract or mint_token, or any exclusions.

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