Trap check for a fresh Solana mint (pump.fun focus): rug-check verdict, dev first-buy SOL, reserves, liveness. Safety screen, not a profit claim; verify via track_record. Free 10/day, then $0.01/check (see guard_pricing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana mint address (base58) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses scope (pump.fun focus), returned signals, the non-profit interpretation, and the cost model ('Free 10/day, then $0.01/check'). It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects, but 'check' and the listed analysis outputs strongly imply a non-mutating operation.
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 compact and front-loaded: scope and outputs come first, followed by the safety-screen caveat and pricing. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of the schema.
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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by listing expected result categories and naming the sibling for deeper verification. It does not define terms like 'rug-check verdict' or 'fresh', but these are reasonably inferable from domain context and are not invocation-critical.
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 100%: the only parameter, 'mint', is already described as 'Solana mint address (base58)'. The description adds the 'fresh' framing but no additional parameter semantics or format details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource ('fresh Solana mint') and the action ('trap check'), then lists concrete outputs: 'rug-check verdict, dev first-buy SOL, reserves, liveness.' It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by stating 'not a profit claim; verify via track_record,' so an agent can tell which tool fits.
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 description explicitly frames the tool as a safety screen and points to a sibling for follow-up verification ('not a profit claim; verify via track_record'). It also routes cost questions to guard_pricing. It does not provide a full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use matrix across all sibling check tools, but it gives clear, actionable context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct actions (build a swap, check a mint, verify a claim, fetch pricing), and the descriptions make boundaries clear. The main risk is mild confusion between check_mint/score_mint and copy_signals/recent_events, as both pairs sit in adjacent signal/safety territory, but they are not interchangeable.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (build_swap, check_mint, score_mint, verify_claim, track_record). guard_pricing and recent_events break that pattern slightly, but the naming remains predictable and readable overall.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns a place in the safety/signal/trading workflow. It is neither bloated with near-duplicates nor too thin to define a useful server.
The server covers a coherent lifecycle: discovery (recent_events/copy_signals), safety and validation (check_mint/score_mint/verify_claim), execution (build_swap), and outcome auditing (track_record). Minor gaps exist, such as an EVM swap builder to complete the Robinhood check path, but the core workflow is usable.