Coin details

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

The readOnlyHint already covers safety, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond it: results adapt to lifecycle stage (bonding curve vs. graduated DEX pair) and live activity is only present 'if it launched while this server was watching.' That caveat is exactly the kind of limitation an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource and key, followed by a compact list of returned data. It is long but every clause maps to a distinct output field or caveat, so it earns its length; a lighter split into two sentences would read better.

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?

No output schema exists, so the field inventory (metadata, price/market cap, curve or DEX pair, volume, holder concentration, dev wallet/holding) carries the return-value burden and does so well, including the watching-server caveat. Only minor gaps, such as behavior for an unknown or graduated mint, 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% and the single parameter already documents 'the coin's mint address (CA).' The description repeats the same concept in the same words without adding format or validation detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource (a single pump.fun coin) and the keying dimension (mint address / CA), and the enumeration of returned fields makes the scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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: 'by its mint address' signals this is the lookup-by-CA path, which indirectly separates it from pump_search and pump_new_launches. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any prerequisite noted.

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