madeonsol_sniper_recent

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: the pre-confirmation timing advantage (~500ms), the tier-based visibility of deployers, and the need for a specific API key. No contradictions 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 two sentences, front-loading the core functionality and then adding access details. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, pre-confirmation concept, tier system), the description covers the essential purpose, access requirements, and timing advantage. It does not detail return format or pagination, but this is acceptable since there is no output schema and the tool is a feed. It could be slightly more complete with notes on data frequency, but it's adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameters beyond the schema. It mentions tiers in the context of access, but not parameter-specific usage. Therefore, it provides minimal additional value.

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 pre-confirmation feed of pump.fun deployments with a timing advantage of ~500ms. It specifies the resource ('pump.fun deploy feed') and action ('surface new launches'), and distinguishes itself from siblings via its unique pre-confirmation nature and tier-based access.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool for pre-confirmation sniper activity and mentions the requirement of a Pro/Ultra API key. It also explains tier differences (PRO vs ULTRA). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like madeonsol_sniper_by_deployer, so it lacks explicit usage vs. alternatives.

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