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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses pricing ($0.01/call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result), error semantics (isError on invalid input or upstream failure, not charged), and the aggregation scope (every recorded curve trade). Cost and billing behavior are exactly the traits annotations cannot carry.

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 core capability, then routing, then cost and errors — no filler sentences. The enumerated return contents are somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return shape, and one fully-described parameter, the remaining agent-facing unknowns — cost, failure behavior, and sibling routing — are all explicitly addressed.

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% and the single `mint` parameter is fully documented with a Base58 pattern. The description only adds that the mint must be a pump.fun token specifically, which is marginal; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: 'Full bonding-curve forensics for one pump.fun mint', then enumerates the concrete artifacts (flow, dev buys/sells, snipers, peak, graduation). An agent can immediately distinguish it from pump_launches or pump_history without opening a 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?

Explicit 'When to use' section names three alternatives — launch_scan, token_risk, pump_dev — with the precise condition selecting each, including server locations. This is a textbook routing block with no exclusions left to inference.

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