Get recently detected pump.fun tokens indexed by RiftBeam via Helius webhook. Returns up to 200 mint addresses (newest first) that have been traded on pAMMBay6 (graduated pools). Use mint addresses as input for pump_token_quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: a hard limit of 200 results, newest-first ordering, and the specific pool (pAMMBay6/graduated pools). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it omits potential edge cases like empty results or time-window specifics.
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 focused sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and followed by output specifics and downstream use. Every sentence justifies itself.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned (mint addresses), quantity and ordering (up to 200, newest first), and the intended follow-up (pump_token_quote). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description imposes no parameter ambiguity and correctly avoids discussing parameters; baseline 4 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'recently detected pump.fun tokens', with added detail about indexing source (RiftBeam via Helius webhook) and output (up to 200 mint addresses, newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pump_token_quote, which is mentioned as the intended consumer of the output.
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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned mint addresses as input for pump_token_quote, establishing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly list exclusion conditions, but the downstream instruction is strong; hence a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
