Memecoin risk card: holders, creator, flags ($0.025)

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

Annotations are mixed (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so they don't fully tell the agent what this does. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: a per-call price ($0.025), the meaning of coverage full vs thin, and the specific semantics of graduation (curve witnessed >= 84 SOL). It does not clarify why a pure lookup is flagged non-read-only, which would help.

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?

Leading with price rather than purpose delays the front-loaded value, and the body is one run-on sentence of nested field names ending in an ellipsis. Because there is no output schema, enumerating return fields has some justification, but it could be structured as a compact list instead of dense prose.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so thoroughly (flags with first-seen times, probabilities, cohorts, authorities, Token-2022 extensions). Cost, coverage tiers, and the graduation threshold are all disclosed, so an agent has enough to decide and call. The only gap is the unaddressed non-read-only annotation.

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 `mint` property already documents base58 length, the 'pump' suffix convention, and accepted explorer links. The description only restates 'ONE Solana token' and adds no format, normalization, or error-handling detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opening line pins the deliverable to 'every measured field for ONE Solana token,' and the field list (rug/close flags, curve truth, P(rug), creator record) makes the resource concrete. The 'ONE token' scope implicitly contrasts with the batch-oriented siblings, though no sibling is named. It reads more as a field inventory than a verb+resource statement, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 every measured field for ONE Solana token' gives a positive trigger, and the coverage full/thin split hints at when the result will be rich. But there is no when-not guidance and no routing to cheaper alternatives such as check_pumpfun_risk, token_safety, or mint_holders, despite many siblings covering overlapping ground. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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