Creator (dev wallet) reputation ($0.02)

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: per-call cost ($0.02), that a stale feed is refused before payment, that only outcomes known at request time count, and that an unseen wallet returns is_first_time=true. The readOnlyHint=false is consistent with a paid call rather than contradicted by any claim of a write. It does not cover pagination/format detail, but the paid-and-refusable behavior is the important disclosure.

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?

Cost and purpose are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries distinct information (graduation threshold, rug definition, warm-launch funding window). The middle sentence is a long run-on list, which costs some readability but wastes little.

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 takes on the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates the counters, the last-25-launch detail, live mints, and is_first_time. An agent knows what it will get, what it costs, and when the answer is refused.

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 100% and the single address parameter is fully documented (base58, 32-44 chars). The description restates "address (base58 wallet)" but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The is_first_time=true note is output semantics rather than parameter meaning.

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 and resource: judging a new pump.fun token by its creator's prior launch history, and enumerates the exact signals it returns (n_launches, graduations, rugs, time-to-first-sell). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by pointing at check_pumpfun_risk and mint_risk_card for the launch itself.

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?

"Use to judge a new pump.fun token by its creator's earlier launches" gives the positive trigger, and "For the launch itself use check_pumpfun_risk or mint_risk_card" names the alternatives for the adjacent case. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both explicit.

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