Prepare a token launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does it well: it states the server never signs or sends, that the output is unsigned and must be signed by the wallet owner, and that creator fees are permanent. It omits cost/rate behavior and what happens when the simulation fails, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it computes, what it returns and who signs, and which parameters must be asked for with the permanence warning. The most consequential facts (unsigned, no defaults) are front-loaded.

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 12-parameter, 10-required mutation-preparation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return payload, the signing model, and the permanence constraint. Gaps remain around quoteAsset approval requirements and failure behavior during simulation, but nothing critical to correct invocation is absent.

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 already 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by declaring that five of the parameters have no defaults and must be solicited from the owner, and by flagging that creatorBuyFeeBps/creatorSellFeeBps are permanent. It does not explain firstBuy or quoteAsset usage, which is left to the schema.

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 specific chain of verbs and the concrete artifact produced: 'Mines the vanity salt, computes the start tick, simulates, and returns an UNSIGNED factory transaction plus the predicted token address.' That is enough to separate it from siblings such as prepare_metadata_message or save_metadata, which prepare other artifacts.

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?

It gives explicit operational preconditions — no defaults for fee/share settings, must ask the owner for suffix and the four bps values, and must show the summary before signing. It does not explicitly name when another sibling (e.g. get_quote_assets before supplying quoteAsset) should be used first, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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