cpu_create_syndicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-join as first member, cooldown on leaving, default manager, on-chain write requirement, and detailed failure conditions (already in syndicate, empty/over-long name/link, rate >100%, registry not deployed). This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the primary action and then efficiently covers constraints, side effects, and failure modes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information; no filler or redundancy.

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 on-chain write with nested parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers creation behavior, result contents (id, join time, earliest leave), cooldown implications, manager semantics, rate validation, and edge-case failures. Very thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the four rates collectively as 'same-syndicate trade/transport discounts and the trade/transport tax the manager collects', and clarifies that manager can be passed to another wallet. It also reinforces the basis-point precision constraint.

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 opens with 'Found your own syndicate' and clearly enumerates the parameters (name, link, four fee rates), distinguishing this creation tool from siblings like join_syndicate and leave_syndicate. The verb 'create' is implied by the function name and reinforced by the full context.

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 tool's purpose as the creation entry point is clear, and it explicitly warns that failing occurs if already in a syndicate ('leave first'), giving a when-not-to-use condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling names like join_syndicate and set_syndicate_params provide context.

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