Rug check for up to five mints ($0.01 total)

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: per-call pricing model, the refusal precondition (full live coverage and feed lag <= 5 s, refused before payment), the retry/replay window for an identical signed payment, and an explicit 'no flags observed is not a safety guarantee' caveat. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, with pricing and the usage rule leading. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the single run-on paragraph packs pricing, input format, output contents, preconditions and retry policy together, which makes it harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it enumerates the per-mint payload (findings with first-observed times, P(rug within 5 min), P(true graduation), concentration, flow, market and authorities). Combined with the payment and refusal rules, nothing needed to call this correctly 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 the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by restating accepted input forms (raw mint or pump.fun/gmgn/solscan/birdeye link) and by explaining cursor semantics that the schema only calls 'opaque' — namely that a cursor with no new watched events returns an unpaid result.

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 batch rug check for one to five pump.fun mints at a flat $0.01, and explicitly names the sibling it is not (check_pumpfun_risk for a single mint). An agent can distinguish it from check_batch_risk, token_safety and mint_risk_card without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ('use when you hold or watch two to five pump.fun mints'), names the cheaper single-mint alternative with its price, and points to the free alternatives (check_coverage, watchlist_updates). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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