Build an unsigned coin launch

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing rate limits (10 launches per wallet per day), the 15% dev buy cap, the 5 second sniper window, fee/mode economics, and the server-side vanity mint behavior when customMint is absent. These are meaningful behavioral constraints that annotations do not carry. It stops short of explaining transaction expiry, error conditions, or exactly what the unsigned transaction contains.

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?

Front-loads purpose and core constraints in three dense sentences with little waste. The long parenthetical rule list is slightly run-on but every clause carries information about fees, caps, or signing behavior.

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 mutation-style build tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics, signing requirement, rate limits, and server behavior. It would be more complete if it stated the shape of the returned unsigned transaction and any failure or expiry behavior, but the core call-preparation context is present.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, the description compensates well for the most consequential ones: mode is explained in terms of creator/holder earnings, customMint triggers server-side mint selection and an extra signature, and devBuySol is bounded by the 15% supply cap. Several metadata parameters (xUrl, website, telegramUrl, description, name/ticker) receive no explanation beyond the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build the create transaction for a new coin on justi.fun,' and immediately distinguishes it from a send operation with 'nothing is sent.' An agent can tell this is the launch-preparation step rather than a swap or query without opening the schema.

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 when to use it by saying the creator wallet must sign the result and nothing is sent, but it never names an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not condition. The signing requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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