Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits (3 calls/hour free), paid tier pricing ($0.010/call), data retention (history non-reconstructable), and the advisory boundary ('Facts and flags only, never advice'). It does not describe the response format, but this is partially handled by the schema's next_since field.

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 information-dense but efficient: it opens with purpose, then covers incremental polling, data persistence, advisory nature, and pricing in four short sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a feed tool with three optional parameters. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and data context, though it leaves the exact response shape unspecified—mitigated by the field descriptions and next_since behavior in the schema.

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%, with each parameter (only, limit, since) already having a descriptive explanation. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing ?since= polling, matching the baseline expected when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 provides a live feed of pump.fun launches from the last 24 hours with specific creator context (who deployed, prior launches, own-curve purchase). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'launch' (singular) by emphasizing the feed/polling nature and the 24-hour scope.

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 gives explicit polling guidance ('Poll with ?since= for only what is new') and warns that history cannot be reconstructed afterwards, implying real-time use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.