pumpfun_first_claimsFirst-ever pump.fun creator fee claims in a time window: a cash-out signal. Returns creators who have never claimed before, with creator wallet, mint, lamports, and timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sinceMinutes | No | How far back to look for new claimers (minutes) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the tool filters to first-ever claims and returns specific fields (creator wallet, mint, lamports, timestamp). It clarifies the time-window behavior without contradicting any annotations.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core concept ('First-ever pump.fun creator fee claims'), and every sentence adds value—purpose first, then return fields. No wasted words or redundant details.
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 simple read-only tool with two straightforward parameters, the description covers the core functionality, filtering logic, and return fields. With annotations already indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior, it is complete enough, though it lacks explicit usage exclusions or mention of sorting/pagination.
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?
The input schema describes sinceMinutes as 'How far back to look for new claimers (minutes)' but leaves limit undocumented. The description mentions 'time window' which relates to sinceMinutes, but it does not explain the limit parameter or its effect. This partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage but is incomplete.
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 states the tool returns first-ever creator fee claims in a time window, using the specific phrase 'creators who have never claimed before' to distinguish from sibling tools like pumpfun_list_claims. It is a specific verb+resource claim with a clear scope.
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 provides clear context by labeling the output as 'a cash-out signal', implying the tool is for detecting new claimers as a potential sell signal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_coin_intel and get_oracle_conviction overlap in providing intelligence signals; descriptions help differentiate but still may cause confusion.
Naming patterns are mixed: some use snake_case (get_bonding_curve), others use camelCase (sns_reverseLookup), and kol_leaderboard lacks a prefix that others like pumpfun_ have.
19 tools cover a broad range of pump.fun functionality, from token details to claims and social analysis; the count feels appropriate for the scope.
The tool set covers virtually all core aspects of pump.fun ecosystem: token info, intelligence, trading, claims, AMM quotes, metadata upload, SNS, and social sentiment, with no obvious gaps.