build_team_launch_tx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: the transaction is unsigned, must be sent from the lead wallet, and enforces team size, share rules, and milestone constraints. It stops short of explaining error behavior, idempotency, or what happens when constraints are violated.

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 compact and front-loads the key platform constraint and transaction type. It is a dense run-on sentence that could be better structured with bullets for team and milestone rules, but no sentence is wasted.

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 complex 7-parameter transaction builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main launch intent, team, and roadmap constraints. It still leaves important gaps around initialBuyEth, metadataURI, and the exact meaning of lead/name/symbol in the launch process.

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 29%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful constraints for team (up to 5 registered agents, fixed shares, lead gets the rest) and milestones (1-5, shares sum 100, GRADUATION <=30%, VOTE <=50%, PRICE >=1.5x), but it leaves lead, name, symbol, metadataURI, and initialBuyEth largely or 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?

States a specific verb and resource: launch on AgentPad v2 with a TEAM and a custom roadmap, producing an unsigned tx. It distinguishes itself from the likely solo-launch sibling by emphasizing 'TEAM', but it does not explicitly name build_launch_tx or spell out the alternative.

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 sentence 'AgentPad v2 is the ONLY launch target' gives a platform constraint, and 'Send from the lead wallet' is an operational instruction. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over build_launch_tx or other build_* transaction tools.

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