Get one justi.fun coin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description's added value is enumerating exactly what comes back (socials, fee split, safety facts, bonding curve progress, graduation/DAMM v2 pool, sniper window, totals). With no output schema, that return-shape disclosure is genuinely useful. It stops short of noting not-found behavior or data freshness for an open-world live endpoint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the key (mint) stated early and no filler. The trailing field list is dense but each item signals real payload content an agent may need to plan around.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the important ground by describing the returned record's composition. Remaining gaps (behavior for invalid/nonexistent mints, whether the payload is live or cached) are minor for a read-only lookup.

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% and the single parameter already carries a base58 pattern and "Coin mint address" description. The description only restates "by mint", adding no format hints, case sensitivity, or examples, so the baseline 3 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?

Names a specific retrieval ("Full detail of one coin") plus the lookup key (mint), and the phrase "one coin" implicitly contrasts with the sibling justi_list_coins. It does not name justi_list_coins explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the per-coin lookup to run once it has a mint (e.g., from justi_list_coins or a trade). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the mint is unknown, and no alternatives named.

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