pump-fun-connector

execute_sell

Sell part or all of a held pump.fun position by building, signing, and broadcasting a transaction; requires AUTO_TRADING_ENABLED=true.

Instructions

Build, sign, and broadcast a pump.fun sell for part or all of a held position. Requires AUTO_TRADING_ENABLED=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mint": "<mint>"
    },
    "name": "execute_sell"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint`	Yes	Token mint address to sell.
`slippagePct`	No
`percentOfHoldings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses the mutation nature of the operation and the environment gating flag, which is genuinely useful. It omits the traits that matter most for a live trading execution — irreversibility of the broadcast, whether funds move on mainnet, and failure/confirmation behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first states the operation, the second states the gating requirement. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a high-risk financial execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description meets the minimum but leaves key gaps: slippage semantics, irreversibility, and what constitutes success/failure are all 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 only 33%; mint is documented but slippagePct and percentOfHoldings are not. The phrase 'part or all of a held position' does add conceptual meaning to percentOfHoldings beyond its raw default/bounds, but slippagePct is left entirely unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb chain (build, sign, broadcast) and resource (a pump.fun sell) and scopes it to 'part or all of a held position.' An agent can infer this is the execution counterpart to prepare_sell, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states one concrete prerequisite (AUTO_TRADING_ENABLED=true), which is useful context for when invocation can succeed. However, it never contrasts this with prepare_sell or execute_buy, and gives no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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

Deploy Server