build_launch_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the unsigned nature, launch fee of 0, that initialBuyEth is optional, the 5% creator allocation schedule, and the 0.50% creator trade fee. What is missing is operational context such as approval/gas requirements and whether any preconditions (e.g., valid metadata fetch) can make the call fail.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing, with the critical v1-disabled/v2-only constraint front-loaded ahead of economics. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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-style transaction builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers target version, fees, and economics well. It omits what the returned unsigned transaction looks like (fields to sign, chain id, gas) and the initialBuyEth semantics, which an agent needs to complete the flow.

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 25% (only metadataURI is documented), so the description should compensate more than it does. It clarifies that initialBuyEth is optional, but leaves its unit and format (wei vs. decimal ETH string) undefined, and adds nothing about name/symbol beyond the schema's length constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Unsigned tx: one-call solo launch on AgentPad v2") and pins down the exact variant: solo, default roadmap. That implicitly separates it from build_team_launch_tx among the siblings, so an agent can choose without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly says when to use it (AgentPad v2 only, because "v1 launches are disabled on-chain; APAD/v1 tokens still trade"), which prevents a wrong-target launch. It does not name build_team_launch_tx or onboard_and_buy as the alternatives for team launches or launch-and-buy flows, so routing is left partly to inference.

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