Claim creator fees

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risky, external-facing nature is signposted; the description adds which wallet is credited and that only self-launched coins count. It still does not say this submits an on-chain transaction (gas cost, signer requirement), nor what happens when nothing is claimable or what is returned.

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 with the verb, resource, and scoping qualifier in one pass; nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The one remaining gap an agent would want is whether calling it actually broadcasts a transaction and how the claimed amount is reported back.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the schema shows. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Specific verb (claim) plus specific resource (pump.fun creator fees), with scope narrowed to fees owed to this server's wallet for coins it launched. No sibling tool (buy/sell/launch/status) overlaps with claiming accrued creator fees, so an agent can route here without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when fees are owed, but nothing says whether there is a minimum threshold, how often it can be called, or what to do if no fees are available. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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