agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates a token with locked liquidity and vesting options, implying a write operation that likely involves blockchain transactions and value transfers. However, it doesn't mention critical behaviors like gas costs, transaction finality, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens upon success/failure. For an 11-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Create' (action), 'new Coinchan token' (resource), 'with locked liquidity' (key feature), 'and optional vesting schedule' (additional feature). No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 11 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too minimal given this complexity—it doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, gas implications, or security considerations. While the schema covers parameter definitions well, the description fails to provide the broader context needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 82% (high), so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'locked liquidity' (implied by unlockPeriod) and 'optional vesting schedule' (implied by vesting parameter), adding some context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how poolSupply and creatorSupply interact) or provide usage examples, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline.

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') and specifies key characteristics ('with locked liquidity and optional vesting schedule'), which distinguishes it from generic token creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentCoinchanMake' or 'intentCoinchanMakeHold', which appear to be related Coinchan token creation tools.

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 like 'intentCoinchanMake' or 'intentCoinchanMakeHold'. It mentions 'locked liquidity and optional vesting schedule' which hints at use cases, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for invocation.

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