Openbook Create Market

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects, permission requirements, or output characteristics. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with two sentences: the first defines the core purpose, and the second provides SAP context. No unnecessary content. It is front-loaded with the primary action, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity of creating a DEX market (5 required params) and the presence of many sibling market creation tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, error scenarios, or differentiation from similar tools. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall context is minimally adequate.

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%, with all 5 parameters described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning to parameters, so it earns the baseline score of 3. The schema's descriptions (e.g., 'Solana public key (base58)') are adequate but not enriched by the tool description.

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 'Create a new Openbook DEX market for a token pair,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool as an Openbook-specific market creator among sibling tools like raydium-pools_createCPMM, manifest_createMarket, and meteora_createDynamicPool, though it does not explicitly compare to these alternatives.

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 usage guidance for the SAP MCP context, directing the agent to related SAP tools for on-chain registration. However, it does not guide on when to use this tool versus other market creation tools (e.g., Raydium, Manifest, Meteora), leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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