Monitor trending and newly launched tokens on pump.fun. Configure the number of results to display.
pump.fun trending + new launches.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "track_pumpfun"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what effects it has on the system. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely accesses external data.
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 extremely concise (4 words) but under-specified. It lacks structure (e.g., no sentences) and does not earn its brevity by providing essential information. It is more an omission than conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe the output format, pagination, data freshness, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 input schema has a single optional parameter 'limit' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning, default values, or how it affects results, leaving the agent without necessary context.
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 'pump.fun trending + new launches' vaguely indicates the tool tracks trending and new launches on pump.fun, but it does not specify the verb (e.g., retrieve, monitor) or the exact resource. It lacks clarity on what constitutes 'trending' versus 'new launches' and does not differentiate from sibling tools like track_bonkfun.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_trending or other track_* tools, nor does it explain any prerequisites or optimal conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.