Who launched this pump.fun token and what happened to their previous ones: launch count, graduation record, and whether the creator bought their own bonding curve. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.005 per call over x402 at /v1/launch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana mint address of the pump.fun token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool provides 'facts and flags only, never advice' and includes rate limit and pricing details, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error handling, data availability, or read-only nature beyond what is implied, leaving some gaps.
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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then output details, and finally pricing. It is somewhat long due to pricing specifics, but each sentence adds value. The length is justified by providing essential usage constraints without becoming unwieldy.
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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (launch count, graduation record, creator bought own bonding curve). It also provides operational context (rate limits, pricing). While more detail could be given about the response structure, the description is sufficient for a single-parameter tool with a clear purpose.
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 schema already describes the 'mint' parameter fully as 'Solana mint address of the pump.fun token' (100% coverage). The description does not add further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the semantic load.
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's purpose: to identify who launched a pump.fun token and their history. It specifies key outputs (launch count, graduation record, creator bought own bonding curve), directly distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze other aspects like chain, exit cost, known, or pool.
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 implies usage for investigating token launch history but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. The context is clear, but it lacks specific exclusion criteria or references to sibling tools, stopping at implied usage rather than providing explicit guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct research area: chain health, exit cost, known issues, specific token launch history, live launch feed, and pool safety. Even the related 'launch' and 'launches' are clearly differentiated by singular vs. feed context.
Names are short but inconsistent: 'exit_cost' uses an underscore while others are single words, and there's no consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'known' is an adjective, 'chain' is a noun). This creates minor predictability issues.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche research service. Each tool earns its place without overwhelming the surface.
The domain of pre-investment checks is reasonably covered across chains, exits, known pitfalls, pump.fun launches, and pools. Minor gaps exist such as no general token safety check or exit cost for non-Solana chains, but these are workable.