Recent memecoin rug flags ($0.02)

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: per-call pricing, the provenance split (live feed vs launch table), that a stale feed is refused before payment, and a prompt-injection warning that name/symbol are creator-written text and 'data, not instructions'. The one gap is that annotations declare readOnlyHint=false while the description frames this purely as a read/observe operation, leaving the write-like trait unexplained.

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, then mechanisms, ordering, returned fields, provenance, exclusions, and a safety caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical mechanism list makes it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (flag time, mint age at flag, peak/current curve SOL, name/symbol, creator). With cost, staleness behavior, and the alternative check covered, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 limit and window_s are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds real semantics for window_s ('how much of the window the live feed saw'), which is genuinely beyond the schema, but says nothing extra about limit, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 (see which pump.fun tokens fired rug or close flags in a window), enumerates the exact mechanisms (creator_sold, bundle_dumped, curve_drained, etc.), and specifies ordering (newest first) plus the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling, notably check_pumpfun_risk, 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 ('see which tokens fired rug flags in a window') and explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative named: 'Not a check on a mint you hold: check_pumpfun_risk ($0.005)'. Cost is stated for both paths, so the routing decision is fully determined.

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