New pump.fun launches

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description still adds real behavior: data comes live from the chain, is bounded to the server's watch window, and 'hot' is defined precisely as net SOL inflow from buyers other than the dev over the last 5 minutes. It does not disclose pagination or result-size behavior, so it falls short of 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?

The returned fields are front-loaded and the sort modes come last, which is the right priority order. The first sentence is long and dense, but nearly every clause maps to a field the caller will otherwise have to guess at.

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 correctly spends its budget describing what comes back, down to dev holding, dev-sold status, and bundle buys in the launch block. It is only incomplete on the two filtering/paging parameters the schema leaves bare.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It defines the sort enum values well, including the non-obvious 'hot' metric, and the mention of 'whether the dev sold' hints at hide_dev_sold. But limit and min_mcap_usd are never explained, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific resource (coins launched on pump.fun) and a precise scope (since this server started watching, live from the chain), and enumerates the metrics returned. It never names a sibling tool, so an agent must infer on its own that pump_search or pump_coin answer different questions, which keeps this out of 5 territory.

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: the phrase 'since this server started watching' quietly tells the agent this is a live feed, not a historical archive, which matters for deciding between it and pump_search. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named.

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