Execute a buy order for $TPST on Pump.fun using SOL from the agent's embedded Solana wallet. Set the SOL amount and optional slippage to complete the purchase.
Execute or quote a $TPST buy order on Pump.fun via the agent's embedded sovereign Solana wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amountSol | Yes | Amount of SOL to spend to buy $TPST (e.g. 0.05) | |
| slippagePercent | No | Slippage tolerance percentage (default 5%) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a financial transaction, but it does not state that executing spends SOL from the wallet, that the trade is irreversible, or that slippage may affect the final price. The 'execute or quote' dual mode is mentioned but not explained behaviorally.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, target token, venue, and wallet context. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical operational details: how the agent selects execute vs quote, what the return value looks like, whether the wallet must be funded, and what failure/slippage behavior to expect. This is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.
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 schema already documents amountSol and slippagePercent well. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning and does not clarify how the 'quote' vs 'execute' mode maps to the parameters, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('execute or quote'), a specific resource ('$TPST buy order'), and the venue ('Pump.fun'). The tool is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like colosseum_status or colosseum_leaderboard, which have different purposes.
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 implies use when the agent needs to buy $TPST, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention any alternative tool. There is also no explanation of when 'execute' should be chosen over 'quote', even though the description presents both modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.