Raydium-pools Create A M Mv4

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds little beyond the prerequisite. It does not disclose side effects, fees, or failure modes. Without annotations, the description would need to carry the burden, but here it does not.

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 short but includes a paragraph about SAP MCP context that is not directly relevant to the tool's operation. This reduces conciseness and front-loads irrelevant information. The core description is minimal.

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 many sibling raydium-pools tools, the description does not help distinguish them. It does not describe the output or return value (though output schema exists). The prerequisite is useful but not enough for a complex pool creation tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description only adds that the market must exist, which is already implied by the schema's 'Openbook market ID'. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so 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) and resource (Raydium AMM v4 pool). It also mentions a prerequisite (existing Openbook market). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like raydium-pools_createCLMM or raydium-pools_createCPMM, so it scores 4 rather than 5.

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 a prerequisite but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The SAP context paragraph is unrelated to usage of this specific tool. Minimal guidance for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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