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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: per-call pricing, the 10 free/day quota, the payment-required/x402 fallback, and that upstream errors are not charged. However, it doesn't note freshness/staleness or result ordering beyond 'seconds old'.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and payload, then when-to-use, then price and errors in a predictable order. Dense but every sentence carries information; the pricing/error detail is slightly verbose for a description.

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?

Output schema exists, annotations cover safety, schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds pricing, quota, error semantics, and a downstream next step. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both limit and window_s are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the early-flow window concept ('first-N-seconds flow already aggregated') but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (newest pump.fun token launches) and enumerates what each record contains (dev buy, early buyers/volume, curve progress, market cap, creator launch count), which clearly separates it from siblings like pump_history and pump_token.

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?

Explicit 'When to use: To discover new mints' plus a concrete next step routing to launch_scan on a named server for a per-token verdict. That is real when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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