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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 3% fee and PUMP pair context, which is real behavioral information, but it omits whether this is purely a read-only calculation, what permissions or state it needs, and how the result is derived.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it earns its place without waste.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more work. It explains the quote concept and the alternate input modes but says nothing about the returned value's form or the conditions under which the quote is valid.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Give sol or percent_of_supply' signals that the two parameters are alternative input modes, which is genuinely useful, but it does not state units, valid ranges, precedence if both are supplied, or behavior when neither is given.

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 conveys the resource and result — a quote of how much supply a creator's first buy receives — which is clear enough for an agent working from the name 'quote_first_buy'. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no sibling computes a similar quote, so differentiation is less critical here.

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 text gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. 'Give sol or percent_of_supply' is input instruction rather than usage context, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for pre-launch sizing.

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