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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: data is rewritten every 20s, requests are refused with 503 (and not charged) if data is older than 120s, and each call costs $0.02 USDC via x402. Freshness, error semantics, and payment/auth context are all disclosed.

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 purpose, then behavior, then cost, in three tight sentences with no filler. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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-value detail is correctly omitted, and the freshness/cost caveats make this self-sufficient for calling. The only gap is that the description never situates this relative to the live sibling, which matters for a history/live pair.

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% for both params, so the schema already documents 'hours' and 'limit' with ranges and defaults. The description restates the 1-48h window but adds no format or interpretation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific resource (Solana pump.fun graduations) plus the exact aggregate payload: median time on curve, buyer-burst counts, and post-graduation returns at 1/5/15 minutes. The 'history' scope and 1-48h window make it distinguishable from the live sibling at a glance.

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?

Implied usage is clear (retrieve historical graduation aggregates over a look-back window), and the freshness note helps the agent know when the data is usable. However, it never states when to prefer this over sol_grads_live or any other sibling, nor any exclusions.

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