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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it is free, hard-capped at 50 wallets and a 3-hour window, results are oldest first, and the default window is the last ten minutes. It does not say what happens at the 3-hour boundary or whether results are truncated beyond the 50-wallet cap.

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-loads the cost signal ("Free") and packs scope, output fields, use cases and sibling routing into three sentences with no filler. The telegraphic style ("every size unless min_sol") is dense enough that it takes a second read, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (coin, side, SOL, venue, time) along with ordering. Combined with the window limit, wallet cap, cost, and sibling disambiguation, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it by stating that trades of every size are returned unless min_sol is set and that ordering is oldest first. It does not elaborate on since formatting beyond what the schema already documents in unix seconds.

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 verb+resource with full scope: pump.fun trades (bonding curve and PumpSwap) for up to 50 wallets over the last 3 hours, returned oldest first with named fields. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling wallet_records ("a record, not a signal"), so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions ("what has this wallet traded today", "follow these wallets", "did this wallet sell") and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it (wallet_records for lifetime status). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are present.

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