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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 20 s rewrite cadence, the 120 s staleness cutoff with a 503 refusal, that refused calls are not charged, and the $0.02 USDC x402 cost. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot get from the schema.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it returns, freshness, cost) are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting is covered elsewhere, and the description supplies the remaining operational essentials: freshness cadence, staleness failure behavior, billing, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to 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% and the single 'hours' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-24, default 24). The description reinforces the 1-24 hour range but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (scored Solana pump.fun bonding-curve bursts) and enumerates exactly what is returned: graduation, speed, peak return, and per-exit-rule returns. It implies the historical/live distinction via 'last 1-24 hours' but never explicitly names sol_bursts_live as the real-time alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'last 1-24 hours' window and the historical framing imply a retrospective-analysis use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that sol_bursts_live is the real-time counterpart.

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