compose_xcp420_fairminter

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

The description discloses the exact fixed parameters and which fields are configurable, adding significant context beyond the basic annotations. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false annotations, and correctly implies this produces a transaction without destructive side effects.

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 two-sentence description is compact and informative, with the first sentence stating purpose and the second detailing constraints without redundancy.

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 is self-contained about the XCP-420 standard and configurable fields, and the schema provides all parameter details. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a compose tool where the result is typically an unsigned transaction, though the description could explicitly state the return type.

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?

The schema already covers all six parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only asset, start_block, and description are true fair launch configuration parameters, while others are transaction mechanics (address, inputs, fee rate). This helps the agent understand the distinction.

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 composes an XCP-420 compliant fair launch, with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the standard's fixed parameters, distinguishing it from generic compose_fairminter sibling tools.

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?

It clearly conveys that this tool enforces a specific community standard with fixed parameters, implying it should be used when an XCP-420 launch is desired. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-compliant launches, so it stops short of full guidance.

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