pumpfun_watch_whalesCollect whale trades on a pump.fun token for a short window (max 10 s). Returns all trades whose USD value meets minUsd.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | SPL mint pubkey (base58) | |
| minUsd | No | Minimum trade value in USD (default 5000) | |
| durationMs | No | Collection window in ms (default 5000, max 10000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: real-time monitoring, non-idempotent (different results each window), max window duration (10s), and filtering by minUsd. Annotations only indicate read-only and open-world, but description clarifies the transient nature.
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 succinctly convey purpose, constraints, and behavior. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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, the description adequately explains the tool's function and parameter roles. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., trade fields), which may be needed for full usability.
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 100%, so baseline 3. Description mentions minUsd and window constraints but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
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 (collect/watch), resource (whale trades on pump.fun token), and constraints (short window up to 10s, minimum USD value). Distinguishes from sibling get_token_trades which likely returns all trades.
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?
Description implies usage for monitoring high-value trades in real-time, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_token_trades or kol_leaderboard. No when-not-to-use guidance provided.
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.