Buy a coin

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new behavior: funds come from this server's wallet, the trade is simulated and only sent if it would succeed, and it is capped by PUMP_MAX_SOL_PER_TRADE. It still leaves open what a partial fill or a slippage breach does, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct weight: what it does, the human-confirmation safety gate, and the simulate-then-send plus cap mechanics. The money warning is placed up front where it matters.

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 real-money mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety, execution path, and the spend cap well, but omits slippage semantics and what the agent gets back (fill amount, tx signature, failure detail) – meaningful gaps for a trade tool.

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 0% and the description does not define any of the three parameters. mint and sol are loosely implied by 'buy a coin with SOL' and 'confirm the coin and the amount', but slippage_pct (0.5-50 range, presumably a percentage) is never mentioned or defaulted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (buy a pump.fun coin with SOL) plus the wallet source and the two venues (bonding curve vs. its DEX pool after graduation). The direction of the trade makes it trivially distinguishable from the pump_sell sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: confirm the coin and amount with the user because it is REAL MONEY. It does not explicitly name pump_sell as the opposite action or say when NOT to use it, but the context for when to call is unambiguous.

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