Raydium-pools Create C P M M

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (mutating), not idempotent, not destructive, and open world. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as side effects, permissions, or costs. With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description does not enhance transparency.

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 first sentence is concise, but the second sentence about SAP MCP context is tangential and reduces focus. It could be shorter without the irrelevant guidance.

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?

Despite having an output schema and six parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain the constant product formula, the role of each parameter in pool creation, or expected behavior. The context is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it creates a Raydium CPMM pool (specific verb+resource). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like createCLMM or createAMMv4, but the name includes CPMM, making the purpose moderately clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions unrelated SAP MCP tools but offers no criteria for choosing CPMM over other pool types.

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