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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, result ordering, data freshness, or filtering side effects. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it contributes little beyond them.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and to the point. However, it is somewhat under-sized relative to the tool's 25 parameters, which is why it does not earn a 5.

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?

With 25 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It never explains what the tool returns, how filters affect results, or what terms like 'graduating' mean precisely. An agent could make a minimal call with `type` alone, but would lack the context needed to use the full filter surface correctly.

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 32% and the description compensates very little. The parenthetical 'new, graduating, graduated' loosely clarifies the `type` enum, but it does not explain the many filter parameters (`volume_gte`, `holderCount_gte`, `insiderHoldPercent_gte`, etc.) or how they interact. The description adds marginal meaning beyond 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Query PumpFun tokens', and adds three categories (new, graduating, graduated) that map to the `type` enum. This is more specific than a bare resource name, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling token-discovery tools like findSolanaGems or birdeyeTrendingTokens.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools for token discovery, trending tokens, and token searches, the agent receives no contextual signal about which scenario calls for getPumpFunTokens.

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