madeonsol_almost_bonded

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: how progress_pct is computed (on-chain reserves depletion), that velocity is null until a 5-minute snapshot exists, and that eta_minutes is a linear projection. It also explains the enrichment with deployer tier. No contradiction with annotations.

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 densely informative but not verbose. The first sentence captures the core purpose and ranking philosophy. Every subsequent sentence adds concrete details about computed fields and return structure. Slightly longer than necessary but well-organized.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explicitly lists all returned fields (mint, symbol, name, progress_pct, etc.) and explains the meaning of computed ones (velocity, eta, stalled). It covers filtering defaults and edge cases (null velocity before snapshot), making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains the default sort (velocity_desc) and max_progress (99.99) to exclude already-bonded tokens, and that min_velocity_pct_per_min drops tokens without a snapshot. It contextualizes the filter parameters within the graduation process.

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 begins with 'Pre-bond pump.fun tokens approaching graduation, ranked by VELOCITY (Δprogress/min)', clearly specifying the verb (list/rank), resource (almost-bonded tokens), and distinct ranking approach. It contrasts with sibling tools like 'madeonsol_discovery' or 'madeonsol_tokens_list' by focusing on the near-graduation state.

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 states it's 'PRO/ULTRA only', indicating access restrictions. It implies usage for finding tokens about to graduate, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish from other token list tools.

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