radiant_create_ft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 2-transaction commit+reveal mechanism and the return of transaction IDs plus tokenRef, but it does not mention on-chain side effects, funding needs, finality, or the wif-vs-key_alias choice, which limits transparency for a state-changing operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mechanism, and return value. The description is tightly written, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids re-listing schema fields.

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?

The description covers core purpose, mechanism, and return value, but the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Important operational context such as on-chain cost, irreversibility, and key-handling behavior is omitted, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even with no additional parameter detail in the description. The schema already documents wif/key_alias exclusivity, defaults, and fee meaning, while the description adds no parameter-specific value and its 'Requires a WIF private key' line is a slightly misleading summary of the credential options.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Mint') and a precise resource ('Glyph Fungible Token (FT) on Radiant'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also mentions the 2-transaction commit+reveal pattern, which distinguishes it from token transfer or NFT creation siblings.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as radiant_transfer_token or radiant_create_nft. The only usage signal, 'Requires a WIF private key,' is incomplete because the schema explicitly allows either wif or key_alias and marks key_alias as preferred.

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