Dev history

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context that results come from *recent* on-chain history (so the list is partial) and enumerates the outcome states, but it omits what happens when neither wallet nor mint is supplied, despite zero required parameters.

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?

Two tight sentences; the resource and its status categories are front-loaded and the argument modes follow. No filler, though the argument sentence is slightly elliptical ("or a coin's mint") about mutual exclusivity.

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 does the right work by describing the return contents (launched coins and their current lifecycle state). For a read-only 3-param tool this is nearly sufficient; only dual-argument behavior and result size/limits are unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 33% (only `scan` is documented), so the description must carry the rest. It does explain the meaning of `wallet` and `mint` at a high level and that `scan` bounds the lookup, but gives no exclusivity rule, format hints (address format), or guidance on choosing a scan depth.

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 (coins a wallet launched on pump.fun) plus the returned dimension (graduated / on the curve / dead), which tells an agent exactly what it gets. It doesn't name or contrast any sibling (pump_wallet, pump_coin), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Pass a wallet, or a coin's mint" gives two concrete invocation modes and their intents (list a wallet's launches vs. check a specific coin's dev). It doesn't say when to prefer pump_wallet or pump_coin instead, and doesn't state whether both args may be supplied together.

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