Build UNSIGNED launch transactions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses activation prerequisites per venue (BAGS_API_KEY, ZORA_ENABLED, CLANKER_ENABLED, VIBEVIBE_ENABLED), the fee routing map, and treasuryBps bounds — genuinely useful operational context. It also emphasizes UNSIGNED, which is consistent with readOnlyHint even though the "Autohire is fallback" path could imply hire-side state; that tension is not explained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact per-platform mapping, then defaults and fee economics — every clause carries information and there is no filler. It reads as a dense telegraphic block rather than prose, which costs a little readability but not correctness.

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 19-parameter tool with 21% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the highest-value items (platform behavior, crew sourcing, fees) but silently omits what the tool returns (unsigned tx payload? one per venue?) and how that output feeds crew_submit_signed. Several sizing/mode parameters remain opaque.

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 21% across 19 parameters, so the description must carry most of the meaning. It clarifies platform semantics, crew[] sourcing, optInOnly default, and treasuryBps range, but leaves mode, seats, launcherPubkey, mintPubkey, initialBuySol (capped at 10), and the metadata fields (name, ticker, description, socials, image) entirely unexplained.

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 ("Create UNSIGNED launch transactions") and enumerates exactly what each platform value means (pumpfun, bags, zora, clanker, vibevibe), so the agent knows the scope precisely. The "UNSIGNED" qualifier implicitly separates it from crew_launch and crew_submit_signed, but no sibling is named outright, so handoff to the signing/submitting tool is left to inference.

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?

"Prefer explicit crew[] from crew_list_kols; Autohire is fallback" gives an explicit preference order between this tool's input modes and routes the agent to crew_list_kols. Defaults (platform=pumpfun, optInOnly off) and per-platform gating env vars are stated. No "when not to use this tool" or explicit pointer to crew_submit_signed / crew_launch_dry_run, which is the main remaining gap.

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