New pump.fun launches screened by verdict ($0.01)

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds substantial context the annotations cannot carry: the $0.01 cost, the refusal-before-payment behavior on stale or empty feeds, the <=5 s feed-lag requirement, the ~30 s response time, the fixed rule source (/v1/labels), and the explicit disclaimer that no_flags_observed is not a safety guarantee.

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?

Nearly all content earns its place, but it is delivered as one ~110-word run-on sentence followed by fragments, which hurts front-loading and scanability. Pricing leads, which is reasonable, but the return-shape and refusal details are buried mid-sentence.

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 burden of describing the return payload (verdict word, reason(s), P(true graduation), P(rug within 5 min), age, curve SOL, buys, market, authorities, links, scanned/avoid_skipped counts) and the refusal semantics. That is thorough, though the extreme compression leaves some mapping ambiguities.

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%, so both limit (1-50) and max_age_s (30-3600) are already documented. The description corroborates but does not extend them - 'default last 15 min' and 'up to 50' simply restate the schema defaults and cap, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: newest screened pump.fun launches filtered to verdicts that are not 'avoid', ranked by P(true graduation), capped at 50. It is narrow enough to distinguish itself from sibling listing tools like launches_since or recent_launches, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when a screener wants the newest covered pump.fun launches... already screened' gives a clear triggering context, and it states exclusions (mayhem left out, avoid-verdict launches filtered out) plus a precondition (feed lag <= 5 s, stale/empty refused). It stops short of naming a sibling to use instead when the condition is not met.

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