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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds genuinely new behaviour: $0.002 per call with 10 free daily, a payment-required result carrying x402 options after the quota, and isError with a message (uncharged) for invalid input or upstream failure. It also explains what a repeat block-0 wallet means, which is interpretation an agent needs to read the output.

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 first sentence front-loads the payload and the operational details (when-to-use, price, errors) follow in a predictable order. The $-11% vs -5% economics recital earns its place as interpretation guidance but is longer than the agent strictly needs.

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?

To call this correctly, the agent needs the data source, time window, parameters, cost, error handling, and what a bundle crew means. All of that is present, and the output schema exists so return values do not have to be described.

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%, so the schema already documents both `creator` (Base58, 32-44 chars) and `limit` (1-100, default 25) fully. The description adds no semantics beyond fixed facts like the 10-day window and never mentions limit, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: every pump.fun coin a Solana wallet created, plus graduation counts and its repeat bundle crew. It also distinguishes itself from pump_dev, which handles graduation stats, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' clause gives the exact condition (a dev's launch count and repeat bundle crew) and names pump_dev for graduation stats. The exclusion is clear, but the three sibling tools on this server (bundle_forensics, bundler_profile, evm_bundle_forensics) are never mentioned, so the alternatives stay incomplete.

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