colosseum_token_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a non-mutating query, real-time freshness, and the data source (Pump.fun/Solana), which is useful. It does not disclose rate limits, staleness bounds, or response shape, but for a zero-parameter read-only fetch the burden is modest.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the key identifiers: token ($TPST), source (Pump.fun), chain (Solana), and the returned metrics (bonding curve, price in two currencies, market cap, DEX info). 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what data the agent will receive and where it comes from, so invocation is unambiguous. It could be slightly more complete by stating the exact output format, but the listed metrics are the main contract.

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?

The tool has no parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description names all returned data categories and therefore does not need to explain input semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and names the exact resource: $TPST Pump.fun bonding curve metrics, price in USD/SOL, market cap, and DEX info on Solana. This clearly distinguishes token_info from siblings like buy_token, status, and match.

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?

It is clear this should be used when an agent needs current $TPST valuation and bonding-curve/DEX context on Solana. It does not name excluded cases, but it does not need to: the tool is a fixed-token query with zero parameters, and sibling tools cover other actions.

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