pumpfun_watch_claimsReturn all pump.fun fee-claim events for a creator wallet within a look-back window (durationMs). Useful for batch collection after a delay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| creator | Yes | Creator wallet address (base58) | |
| network | No | mainnet | |
| durationMs | No | Look-back window in ms (default 300000 = 5 min, max 1800000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying that it returns events within a window. No behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide are disclosed (e.g., rate limits, empty responses).
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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence provides the core functionality, second gives a use case. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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 tool with no output schema and few parameters, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It does not specify the structure of returned events or potential errors, but is largely complete for basic agent decision-making.
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 67%; the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. For high-coverage schemas, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the resource (fee-claim events), verb (return), and scope (creator wallet, look-back window). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pumpfun_list_claims or pumpfun_first_claims, but the action is distinct enough.
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 phrase 'Useful for batch collection after a delay' implies when to use, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Usage is implied but not fully specified.
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.