get_token_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the live-data availability constraint and the subscription/retry semantics, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It omits permission/rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only lookup the disclosed constraints are substantial.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and its sources, the second covers the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No filler.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must convey return content, and it enumerates the concrete fields (bonding curve state, implied price, holders, mint/freeze authority, metadata) plus the missing-price edge case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the mint address and its base58 format. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get price/liquidity/holder/contract detail for a specific pump.fun token mint') and enumerates the data domains returned, which separates it from narrow siblings like get_risk_score or get_new_tokens.

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?

Gives actionable usage context: it explains the source mix (live trade feed vs RugCheck report) and prescribes a retry pattern ('call this once to subscribe, then again a few seconds later if price fields are missing'). It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it.

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