Raydium-pools Create C L M M

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as transaction costs, permission requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but minimally adds value.

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 clear sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose. The second sentence provides ecosystem context, which is useful but slightly tangential. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded.

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 tool has an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a complex tool with 10 parameters and multiple siblings, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 each parameter described. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema itself. Baseline score of 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 tool creates a Raydium CLMM pool with a price range, using specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from other pool types via the name and 'CLMM' mention, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling pool creation tools like createCPMM or createAMMv4.

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 such as createCPMM or createAMMv4. It includes SAP MCP context about agent registration, which is unrelated to usage decisions for this specific tool.

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