Launch Engine

by ZionHopkins

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

passive_compound

Read-only

Compound market presence by deploying related assets around proven anchors, driving sustained growth.

Instructions

Anchor Compounding Engine — deploys related assets around proven anchors.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "market_name": "<market_name>"
    },
    "name": "passive_compound"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`market_name`	Yes	The market/pipeline slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but 'deploys' implies a write operation, creating a contradiction. The description fails to disclose the actual read-only nature and does not explain behavioral traits beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool (1 param, no output schema, annotations present), the description should clarify key concepts like 'anchors' and 'compounding.' It fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'The market/pipeline slug' for the only parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description vaguely states it 'deploys related assets around proven anchors,' but uses jargon without clear definition. It does not effectively distinguish from siblings like passive_deploy or passive_portfolio.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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