Solana pump.fun coins closest to graduating to Raydium: bonding-curve coins ranked by SOL raised, with approximate bonding progress %, market cap, age, and socials. Send { limit? }. Graduation migrates liquidity to Raydium and often spikes volatility — the classic snipe trigger. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/sol/graduating]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max coins, default 20 (max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool is paid (price $0.005, POST endpoint) and lists output fields. However, it lacks details on required authentication, output format, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. This is adequate but incomplete for a paid snapshot 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 concise, consisting of two sentences with key information. The inclusion of the endpoint and price, while useful, adds slight verbosity. Overall, it is well-structured but could be slightly tighter.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about the returned data (ranking, fields). However, it does not explain how to interpret 'bonding progress' or 'socials', nor does it mention the snapshot nature. A bit more detail on the output would improve completeness.
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 only parameter (limit) is fully described in the schema (max coins, default 20, max 50). The description merely mentions 'Send { limit? }', adding no meaningful semantic beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource (Solana pump.fun coins closest to graduating to Raydium) and specifies the fields included (SOL raised, bonding progress %, market cap, age, socials). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get', which slightly reduces clarity. It is distinct from sibling tools like sol_launches or snipe_newpairs.
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 context on when to use the tool (graduation triggers volatility) and mentions the optional limit parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools (e.g., snipe_trending, sol_launches). This limits its guidance for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.