Holders of one pump.fun memecoin ($0.01)

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

The description discloses pricing ($0.01 per call), the data source and freshness semantics (since 2026-09-27T00:18:34Z), the required coverage prerequisite, and a hedging caveat that labels are observations, not a verdict. Since readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false are already declared, this extra billing/snapshot context is a meaningful addition rather than a restatement.

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?

The content is dense and largely earns its place, but it is delivered as a single sprawling sentence that front-loads the price while burying the return-structure detail. Readability and front-loading suffer despite low filler.

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 full burden and does so: it enumerates holder fields, the concentration block (top-5/top-10 share, HHI), the cohorts block (dev, bundlers, snipers within 2s, SOL in/out) and the reputation aggregation. Combined with cost and prerequisite, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool.

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 mint and limit (including the 1-100 bound and accepted link formats) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Input: mint..., limit' restates rather than extends that, so the 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 retrieval verb and resource: 'who holds ONE pump.fun token right now', sourced from a per-wallet ledger of curve trades. The scope (single mint) and the kind of data returned (holders, concentration, cohorts) are explicit, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like wallet_profile or mint_flow.

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 you need who holds ONE pump.fun token right now' gives a clear triggering condition, and the schema adds a prerequisite (call check_coverage first). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. multi-token or historical queries), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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