$0.025: live risk card for one pump.fun mint — curve truth (graduation = curve >= 84 SOL), demand, holder concentration, create-slot bundle/insider/dev shares, look-ahead-safe creator prior at launch, warm-launch label, rug/close flags, exit signals. Historical record for older mints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the graduation threshold, look-ahead-safe behavior, warm-launch labeling, rug/close flags, exit signals, and historical coverage. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and specific.
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 dense yet efficient, front-loading price and scope before listing key risk-card contents. The single run-on sentence is slightly compressed, but every element earns its place and no filler is present.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it explains cost, scope, key metrics, edge-case handling for older mints, and the presence of flags and exit signals. It does not describe exact JSON output structure, but the enumerated categories give an agent enough context to use the tool effectively.
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 0%, but the description compensates by defining 'mint' as a pump.fun mint and indicating the tool analyzes exactly one mint. This adds meaning beyond the bare string property in the schema, though it does not specify address format or validation expectations.
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 clearly defines the tool as a live risk card for a single pump.fun mint and enumerates the risk dimensions it covers. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like wallet_profile or creator_reputation by being mint-scoped, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 implies when to use it: for one-off mint-level risk analysis, including older mints via the 'Historical record' note. However, it does not give explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or exclusions, so usage context is present but not fully articulated.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct analysis layer: market regime, launch lists, graduation/rug event lists, per-mint risk cards, creator reputation, and wallet profiling. Even the demo tool (sample_mint) is clearly framed as a preview of mint_risk_card rather than a competing endpoint.
All tool names follow the same snake_case, descriptive noun-phrase pattern (creator_reputation, mint_risk_card, recent_launches). There is no mixing of verb styles or camelCase, making the toolset predictable for an agent.
Eight tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a meaningful slice of the pump.fun risk-analysis domain. No tool feels redundant or purely cosmetic.
The set covers the full workflow: market context, recent launches, graduation and rug outcomes, per-mint deep dives, creator history, and wallet classification. A user can trace a launch from listing through graduation or rug and then pull entity-level context without hitting dead ends.