Scan one token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses unusually valuable operational context: cost is $0.02 per call and, with no payment configured, calls return 402. It does not explicitly state the read-only nature or any rate limits beyond the per-call price, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and returned data are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the cost/payment caveat immediately after. It is reasonably tight, though the long enumerated list of data groups is heavier than strictly needed for 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return payload's contents and groups. Combined with the payment/402 disclosure and the 'first call' positioning, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor gaps like explicit read-only confirmation remain.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'mint' (base58 Solana mint address) and the 'fields' group selection with its comma-separated group list. The description body adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Full Cookin snapshot for one Solana or Pump.fun token') and enumerates the returned data groups (score, holders, bundles, KOL positions, cohorts, signals, ratings). It implicitly distinguishes itself as 'the first call to make about a token' but does not name the sibling tools it differs from, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 first call to make about a token, at any stage of its life' gives clear when-to-use guidance and an implied priority ordering relative to siblings. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., token_trades), so it stops short of the top tier.

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