pump.fun rug check with calibrated odds ($0.005)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the $0.005 price, the refusal conditions (uncovered, stale, or curve not quoted in SOL => refused before payment, nothing charged), and cursor semantics (no new watched events => unpaid). Annotations only say non-readOnly/openWorld; the description supplies the real operational envelope.

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?

Front-loads price and the core use case, then inputs, returns, and failure modes. Dense and parenthetical-heavy but nearly every clause carries operational information; only mild redundancy with the schema keeps it from a 5.

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 still enumerates the return surface (flags_observed/no_flags_observed, timestamped findings, holder concentration, buyer flow, market, authorities, P(rug within 5 min), P(true graduation)) plus cost and refusal behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both params are already documented, including that mint accepts a pump.fun/gmgn/solscan/birdeye link and that cursor is an opaque watch cursor. The description restates the cursor's unpaid-on-no-new-events behavior rather than adding meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 verb+resource+scope: a pre-trade rug check on ONE pump.fun mint, right before a swap or while holding. It also names the sibling tools used for finding new mints (radar, launches_since), so an agent can separate this from discovery tools.

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 clear timing context ('right before a swap or while holding ONE pump.fun mint') and points at radar/launches_since for mint discovery. It does not explicitly distinguish this from near-neighbors like check_watchlist_risk or token_safety, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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