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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: returns is_pumpfun=false for non-pump.fun tokens, warns that pre-graduation tokens are thin and easy to manipulate, and explains what 'graduated' means. This goes beyond a simple status read and provides meaningful context for the agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains three sentences and some extra explanatory text. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly longer than the most concise examples, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the main return values, the edge case for non-pump.fun tokens, and the risk context of pre-graduation tokens. It does not specify the exact response format or error handling, but it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'mint' with a clear description ('the Solana token mint address'), and the tool description does not add further parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema description coverage is 100%.

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 explicitly states it checks pump.fun graduation and bonding-curve status for a Solana token, listing key returned fields (graduated, bonding_curve_progress_pct, market cap, creator). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the dedicated check for pump.fun tokens, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: 'THE check for a pump.fun token' and 'Use for any pump.fun / fresh Solana memecoin question.' It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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