arcade_launchpad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool builds descriptors (not executing transactions) and that amounts are in raw units with decimal specifications. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions, which are important for an agent deciding to call this tool.

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 a single paragraph that packs significant information. It front-loads the main purpose and action distinctions. While concise, it could benefit from structure (e.g., bullet points for each action) to improve readability, but there is no wasted content.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description does not explain the structure of the returned calls[] array, which is critical for an agent to use the results. It also leaves out explanation of the slippageBps parameter. For a tool with such complexity and no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 description explains parameters for each action: buy (token, amountUsdcIn), sell (token, tokensIn), create (name, symbol, metadataURI?, mode?). It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying raw units and decimal precision for amountUsdcIn and tokensIn. However, it does not explain slippageBps or the full semantics of mode, and metadataURI is only mentioned as optional.

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 builds bonding-curve buy/sell or create-token descriptors, specifying three distinct actions (buy, sell, create) with their respective parameters. The verb 'build' and resource 'descriptors' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like arcade_swap which likely execute swaps.

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 explicit instructions on order of execution ('Run the returned calls[] in order (approve, then action)') and a requirement (token must be 0x address). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like arcade_swap or arcade_quote, though the action-specific parameter sets imply use cases.

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