Launch a coin

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds real value on top: it is public, spends REAL MONEY, requires a PINATA_JWT environment variable, and performs an implicit dev buy. It stops short of saying how much SOL the dev buy costs or what happens if the launch fails midway.

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?

One dense sentence with the action first and the risk warning second; no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (real money, public, confirm with user) are front-loaded.

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?

Given a destructive, money-spending, open-world tool with no output schema and 87% of params undocumented, the description is adequate on risk but incomplete on mechanics: it never says what the tool returns (e.g. the new mint address) or what the social/optional params do.

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 only 13% — just the image param is documented — so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It gestures at image/metadata and the dev buy, but says nothing about symbol/name length limits, the social fields, or the default 0 SOL dev_buy_sol and its cost implication.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Launch a new coin on pump.fun from this server's wallet") with the full pipeline spelled out: IPFS upload, coin creation, dev buy. It clearly separates itself from siblings like pump_buy or pump_coin by describing an end-to-end launch.

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?

States the operating context and a hard precondition ("needs PINATA_JWT") plus an explicit procedure ("confirm every field with the user first"). It doesn't name sibling alternatives (e.g. use pump_buy for buys after launch), but the when-to-use signal is unambiguous.

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