create_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool creates an on-chain token, requires an API key, and that the server handles image upload and metadata. This gives a good sense of the side effects and prerequisites, though it doesn't mention error handling or whether the action is irreversible.

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 description is concise and front-loaded, beginning with the core purpose and immediately providing essential context about on-chain creation, API key requirement, and image options. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention what the response format is (e.g., token address). Additionally, 'Provide one of' is ambiguous regarding whether an image is strictly required, since the schema only requires name and symbol. These are notable gaps for a creation tool.

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 100% of the parameters, but the description adds semantic value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of image inputs and that the server manages the uploads. This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions, earning a score above the baseline.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Launch a new reflection token on DumbMoney' and 'Creates the token on-chain with Token-2022 transfer fees.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tokens and get_token, which are read-only operations.

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 provides usage context by requiring DUMBMONEY_API_KEY and instructing to 'Provide one of: image_url, image_base64, or dalle_prompt.' It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it.

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