Market regime (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it is free, takes no arguments, returns JSON, and scopes the data to 'the last hour' plus 'history totals', which tells the agent what window it is observing.

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 the key framing ('Free. pump.fun market regime meter') and then packs the metric list densely. The metric enumeration is long but each item is load-bearing for understanding the return payload, so it earns its place; minor density cost.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the reported metrics and noting output. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain; the description correctly states 'No arguments' rather than leaving the agent guessing. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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 ('pump.fun market regime meter') and enumerates the concrete signals it reports (launches/min, mayhem share, curve buys/sells, migrations vs true graduations, rug flags, history totals). It also names the sibling it is not, check_pumpfun_risk, for single-mint questions.

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 when-to-use ('judge the pump.fun market as a whole') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('not for one mint (use check_pumpfun_risk)'). The routing decision is fully determined without opening any schema.

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