agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating, minting, and adding liquidity, which implies a complex write operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, gas costs, irreversible effects, or rate limits. The phrase 'via ZAMM' hints at a platform but doesn't explain integration specifics, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loads the core action ('Create a new Coinchan token'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key components like token creation and liquidity addition for clarity. Overall, it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the high complexity of creating a token with liquidity, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits essential details such as expected return values, error conditions, or post-execution states. Without this context, users cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior or outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it does not elaborate on parameter interactions, dependencies, or usage examples. For instance, it doesn't explain how 'poolSupply' and 'ownerSupply' relate to total minting or the role of 'value' in liquidity provisioning. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema documentation without descriptive enhancement.

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 a new Coinchan token'), the resources involved ('mint supplies and add initial liquidity'), and the method ('via ZAMM'). It specifically distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'intentCoinchanMakeHold' and 'intentCoinchanMakeLocked' by focusing on token creation with liquidity, rather than holding or locking mechanisms.

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, such as needing specific permissions or native tokens for liquidity, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'intentCreateCoinToken' or 'intentCoinchanAirdrop' in the sibling list. This lack of context makes it unclear when this is the appropriate choice.

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