deploy_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the transaction is unsigned (important behavioral trait), but does not disclose the output format, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., wallet connection, gas), or what happens post-preparation. Partial 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 sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words; every part contributes to the 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?

Given the complexity of deploying a token, the description is too brief. It lacks information about the output (e.g., transaction hash or unsigned transaction object), prerequisites, error conditions, or what to do after preparation. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., token name, chain, etc.). No additional value added.

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 identifies the tool's action ('prepare'), the resource ('unsigned ERC-20 token deployment transaction'), and the supported chains ('Celo or Base'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'prepare_transfer' (which handles transfers of existing tokens) and read-only tools like 'get_balance'.

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 implies usage for deploying new ERC-20 tokens, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'prepare_transfer' for transfers). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are stated.

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