pumpfun_list_claimsList recent pump.fun fee-claim events for a creator wallet (on-chain, no indexer needed). Returns signature, mint, lamports, and Unix timestamp for each claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| creator | Yes | Creator wallet address (base58) | |
| network | No | mainnet |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and non-destructive. Description adds 'on-chain, no indexer needed' and return fields, which provide context but do not contradict annotations. Not heavily additive but consistent.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information. No fluff, every word adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, description includes return fields. Covers core functionality. However, lacks detail on 'recent' time range, pagination, or error behavior. Mostly complete for a simple list tool.
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 low (33%), but description partially compensates by explaining creator as wallet address and mentioning returns. However, limit and network are not described in description beyond schema defaults. Adds some value but 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?
Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'fee-claim events', and scope 'for a creator wallet'. It distinguishes from siblings like pumpfun_watch_claims by specifying 'recent' and 'on-chain, no indexer needed', providing unique purpose.
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: for listing recent claims on-chain. But no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like pumpfun_watch_claims or pumpfun_first_claims. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
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.