create_spl_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't mention permissions, costs (e.g., transaction fees), network requirements, or what happens after creation (e.g., token address generation). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves blockchain state changes.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the token type and key parameter.

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 tool that creates tokens on a blockchain (implied by 'SPL'), the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on usage or behavior, it fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, network state, costs, or what is returned (e.g., token mint address). The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'specified decimals' which aligns with the 'decimals' parameter but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('new SPL token'), specifying the key parameter 'with specified decimals'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_wallet' or 'create_token_account' by focusing on token creation rather than wallets or accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'mint_tokens' which might be a related operation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a wallet first), compare to similar tools like 'mint_tokens', or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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