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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: closed periods are precomputed from a live recording of every bonding-curve trade, the open period is marked partial, and the mayhem-agent trade share is reported so it can be separated from real demand.

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 dense and front-loaded: it opens with the metric list and time slicing, then adds comparison semantics and data caveats. Almost every sentence earns its place; 'Price: free' is minor noise but does not significantly hurt clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries more responsibility for explaining what the agent will get. It lists the reported metrics, comparison-window behavior, partial-open-period caveat, and mayhem-agent share. It does not spell out the exact response shape or how 'partial' is flagged, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameter formats and defaults. The description nevertheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that compare_from/compare_to produce a second window with per-period change, illustrated by 'this week vs last week,' and that granularity can be 'day or hour.'

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 names a clear object ('pump.fun over time') and enumerates concrete metrics: launches, graduations, graduation rate, trades, SOL volume, and unique wallets. It also explicitly contrasts with pump_pulse by saying it is 'the same tape... sliced into UTC days or hours,' so an agent can immediately distinguish this tool from its sibling.

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 same tape as pump_pulse, sliced into UTC days or hours' gives a direct comparison to the main alternative, and 'compare the market over time instead of reading one snapshot' states when this tool should be used. It also explains how to request a second comparison window with compare_from/compare_to, making the selection and invocation path clear.

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