pump-fun-connector

create_investment_plan

Creates a new investment plan before any buy, writing thesis and risk data to spreadsheets and generating a Plan ID that must exist before preparing a trade.

Instructions

Create a new investment plan BEFORE any buy. Writes one row to 'Investment Plans' in the permanent trade-log spreadsheet and a matching row (status ACTIVE) to 'Active Positions' in the working spreadsheet, sharing a newly generated Plan ID. Per the spec, no buy should be prepared without a Plan ID existing first — the plan is the thesis on record justifying the trade. The aggregate columns (Total Invested, P&L, Status) are sheet formulas and are never written by this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`thesis`	Yes	Written investment thesis — why this token could be a winner.
`riskScore`	Yes	Composite risk score from get_risk_score at plan creation time.
`quickNotes`	No	Short working notes for the active-positions row.
`buyStrategy`	Yes	Planned buy strategy, e.g. 'DCA: 2 buys of $7-8 within first 4h if momentum holds'.
`tokenTicker`	Yes	Token ticker, e.g. DOGEWIF.
`sellStrategy`	Yes	Planned sell strategy, e.g. 'Staggered TP: 50% at +30%, rest at +60%'.
`entryPriceUsd`	No	Entry price in USD, if known.
`nextReviewIso`	No	ISO timestamp for the suggested next review.
`lifecyclePhase`	No	Lifecycle phase: Launch / Trending / Plateau / Decline.
`socialEvidence`	Yes	Creators / social evidence supporting the thesis, e.g. '@cryptoAlphaX (28k), @solanaGemsHunter (61k)'.
`socialMomentum`	No	Current social momentum: Growing / Stable / Declining.
`contractAddress`	Yes	Token mint address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the dual-row write, the shared generated Plan ID, the ACTIVE status, and a crucial negative constraint that aggregate columns are sheet formulas never written by this tool. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero waste: the ordering constraint is front-loaded, the write mechanics follow, and the formula-column exclusion closes with a useful negative. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 12-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (dual write, Plan ID, formula columns) while the rich schema handles parameter details. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly, including examples for buyStrategy and sellStrategy. The description adds no per-parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct baseline when schema coverage is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new investment plan') and immediately clarifies ordering relative to siblings ('BEFORE any buy'), distinguishing it from prepare_buy/execute_buy. The double-write behavior to 'Investment Plans' and 'Active Positions' is named precisely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear guidance that no buy should be prepared without a Plan ID existing first, effectively routing the agent to call this before prepare_buy/execute_buy. Does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the workflow ordering is unmistakable.

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

Install Server

create_investment_plan

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools