launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It proactively discloses key effects: 1B supply, 49% vested over 6 months, 51% to public pool, and 1% perpetual trade fee. It also notes the need for a wallet and password to sign, giving a clear behavioral contract, though it does not mention irreversibility or gas costs.

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 well-structured with clear sections: 'What happens', 'Requirements', and 'Optional'. Each bullet is informative and directly useful, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a deployment tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the deployment process, requirements, and optional fields, making it sufficient for most use cases. However, since there is no output schema, it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash, confirmation), but the step-by-step 'What happens' mitigates this gap. Overall it is contextually strong for a medium-complexity tool.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining the purpose of password ('to sign the launch'), and explicitly labeling url, github, and description as 'optional but encouraged', which reinforces their role beyond the schema entries. This adds value above the schema.

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 'Deploy a new coin/token on Ethereum mainnet,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates from sibling tools like wallet, info, and vesting. It also enumerates the deployment outcome (total supply, distribution, fee) in the 'What happens' section, leaving no ambiguity.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (to launch a token) and lists prerequisites such as having a wallet and password, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. It is more than implied usage, but falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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