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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it aggregates every recorded curve trade, computes specific metrics like first-60-second flow and top net holders, and flags red flags. It also discloses the cost and free tier, which is helpful for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a detailed list of the aggregated data. It is longer than average but every sentence adds information about capabilities and pricing. It avoids fluff and maintains a logical flow from purpose to specifics to cost.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key data categories returned (flow, dev actions, snipers, holders, peak, graduation, red flags). This gives an agent a solid expectation of the report. It could benefit from noting any error conditions or limitations, but for a single-mint forensic tool, it covers the essential inputs and outputs.

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 100% for the single required parameter 'mint', which has a clear description and pattern. The description does not add additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, but it does explain how the mint is used (to retrieve forensics for that specific token). Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline 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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Full bonding-curve forensics for one pump.fun mint'. It enumerates the exact data points returned (flow, dev buys/sells, snipers, holders, peak, graduation, red flags), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like dev behavior or launch listings.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need...' or exclusions. The single-mint focus is implied, but no guidance is given for choosing between this and tools like pump_dev or pump_launches.

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