Add a token and AGENT to an AgentsCoin DEX liquidity pool to enable trading; provide token address and amounts to create or fund the pool.
Create or add an AGENT liquidity pool for a token on the AgentsCoin DEX.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | token 0x... address | |
| privateKey | No | wallet key; omit to use your saved wallet | |
| agentAmount | Yes | amount of AGENT to pair | |
| tokenAmount | Yes | amount of the token to add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as permission requirements or irreversibility of funds committed, so it earns little beyond the annotations.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no wasted words, though it is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.
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?
For a mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves open whether it creates a new pool or adds to an existing one, and says nothing about what the operation returns or requires.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema. The description only loosely implies the token/AGENT pairing, adding nothing beyond what the schema states; baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource combination: 'Create or add an AGENT liquidity pool for a token on the AgentsCoin DEX.' An agent can tell this is a DEX liquidity-provision operation, distinct from swap, send, or create_coin. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any named sibling tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. It does not say when to add liquidity vs. swap, nor mention any conditions such as requiring token approval or a pre-existing pool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.