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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a gating condition and output content, which is useful, but omits authentication needs, error behavior, and explicit read-only status.

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 a single sentence plus a short fragment, front-loaded with the main notion of the bonus. It is concise and wastes little space, though the fragment could be integrated more smoothly.

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 tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, auth requirements, error cases, and return format specifics that an agent would need to invoke it reliably.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description only indirectly references them ('this token' and 'the wallet's personal code'), providing no format, type, or constraint details to compensate.

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 resource (the +20% FOMO bonus for a token) and enumerates what is returned: the wallet's personal code, theses seen, and bonus amount. This is clear enough to distinguish it from register_fomo_bonus, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

It includes a prerequisite ('Only after a confirmed pump.fun reward') that signals when the tool is usable, but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or what to do if the condition is not met.

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