raydium-pools_createAMMv4

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 only states a prerequisite and the creation action, omitting details like side effects, authority requirements, transaction costs, or failure modes. Minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 very concise—one sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the action and prerequisite. However, it could include more details without becoming overly verbose, so not a perfect 5.

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 complex DeFi tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what pool creation entails, parameter roles, or expected outcomes. Lacks completeness for an agent to use confidently.

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 high (80%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'requires an existing Openbook market' (which is not a parameter but a prerequisite). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Raydium AMM v4 pool') and includes a key prerequisite ('requires an existing Openbook market'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createCLMM or createCPMM.

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 mentions the prerequisite of an existing Openbook market, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., addLiquidity, removeLiquidity) or provide context for when other pool types are appropriate.

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