hyre-bonding-curve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals no behavioral traits: no mention of read-only status, rate limits, output format, or side effects. The sparse phrase 'Bonding curve progress' offers no transparency beyond the tool's name.

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, succinct sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core concept, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective 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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what 'progress' means, how the curve data is presented, or how the two parameters relate, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 parameters 'mint' and 'curve_key' are already fully described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the token context and price, so it does not elevate semantics beyond the baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'bonding curve progress' for a PumpFun token at a specific price point, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on new tokens, verdicts, or wallets. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., 'get' or 'fetch'), so the action is implied rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites like whether 'mint' or 'curve_key' is the preferred input. The description only states what the tool reports, not when it should be selected.

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