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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent=false/destructive=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: signals are scoped to an 'observation window', outcome labels only exist once a coin is 'old enough', and the data is time-varying (supporting the non-idempotent hint). It doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or latency.

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 core purpose and the call-to-action are front-loaded, and the feature enumeration is dense rather than padded. It runs long and reads as a feature list, but each clause carries a distinct signal name an agent would want, so little is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully summarizes them. Combined with a clear usage trigger and mutation-free annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the undocumented network parameter and the absence of alternative-routing guidance leave a gap.

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 only 50%: the mint parameter is documented in the schema but network (an enum with a default) is not. The description adds marginal meaning by narrowing the mint to a 'pump.fun mint', but says nothing about the network parameter, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource ('Full Coin Intelligence snapshot for a pump.fun mint') and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains — bundle verdict, cluster connectivity, smart-money, dev behaviour, risk flags, quality score. An agent can distinguish this from generic siblings like get_token_details or get_bonding_curve 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?

It gives explicit decision context ('the single highest-signal read for a trade decision', 'Call this before entering any position'), which strongly signals when to reach for it. It does not, however, name alternatives or say when NOT to use it (e.g. versus get_oracle_conviction or get_token_details), so it falls short of a 5.

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