megalaunch_create_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values ('Returns deposit address and amount to send'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause and efficiently adds return information in the second clause. It uses minimal words to convey essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of a creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and return values but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, authentication) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full implications.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'aiPick' relates to 'tokenName' and 'tokenSymbol'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a new meme token launch order') and the platform ('on Solana/pump.fun'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like megalaunch_cancel_order or megalaunch_get_order, which would require mentioning it's for initial creation versus modification or retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like megalaunch_cancel_order or megalaunch_get_order. It states what it does but offers no context for selection among siblings, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice.

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