New pump.fun memecoin launches ($0.01)

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

Adds strong context beyond the annotations: cost per call ($0.01), the guarantee that a stale feed is refused before payment, and the default filter state. It also enumerates the card contents (curve SOL/progress, unique buyers, holder concentration, rug flags). The readOnlyHint=false annotation carries no explanation, but the pay-per-call and non-idempotent billing model the description describes is consistent with it.

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 purpose, then filters, then alternatives in three tight sentences; the dense return-field list is the only mildly heavy part. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the card fields returned (curve SOL, buyers, concentration, creator record, rug flags, authorities). Combined with pricing, freshness guarantee and sibling routing, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying filter names to their purpose in screening and restating the defaults ('last hour, mayhem excluded'), which maps exclude_mayhem and max_age_s to observed behavior. limit is left to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('screen the new pump.fun launches') and pins down the scope with explicit defaults (last hour, mayhem excluded, newest first). It also names the siblings it is not for, so an agent can separate it from launches_since and check_pumpfun_risk without opening either 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?

Explicit routing: polling goes to launches_since ($0.001) and single-mint checks to check_pumpfun_risk. The only-mint vs batch distinction and the price difference are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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