Recent pump.fun graduations ($0.02)

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context on top: the per-call price, that a stale feed is refused before payment, and the exact criterion for graduated=true (curve witnessed at >= 84 SOL vs below-threshold close). This is well beyond what the structured fields disclose.

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 price and purpose, and every clause carries information (labels, thresholds, output shape). It is dense and semicolon-packed rather than cleanly structured, so an agent parsing it under time pressure may need a second pass.

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 return-shape burden and does so: compact cards with migrate time, pool, peak curve SOL, holder/creator labels, and the instant_bundle vs organic graduation_label. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for window_s ('says how much the live feed saw'), clarifying it is the feed's observation window rather than a filter; limit gets no elaboration.

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 ('list recent pump.fun migrations to PumpSwap'), pins the scope (default last 6 h), and contrasts itself with check_pumpfun_risk as the rug-check alternative. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like recent_launches or recent_rugs without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-to-use plus a when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('Not a live rug check: check_pumpfun_risk'). It also describes the meaning of the graduated flag so an agent knows whether this feed answers its question.

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