pump.fun rug-check verdict with a shareable card ($0.01)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ($0.01 per call), refusal semantics ('refused before payment, nothing charged'), coverage and feed-lag prerequisites (full live coverage, lag <= 5 s), and the fact that the cohorts block is context the rule does not read. It also describes the returned verdict vocabulary and probabilities, none of which the annotations carry.

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?

Price and usage are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (output shape, prerequisites, refusal behavior, evidence pointer). It is dense and somewhat run-on, but there is little pure filler to cut.

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, so the description must explain the return payload — and it does: verdict labels, reason line, up to three evidenced flags, two probabilities, market/authorities, and the share_url card. Combined with the refusal/prerequisite rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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% for the single 'mint' parameter, so the schema already carries the accepted mint/link formats. The description repeats the same input contract without adding new syntax, examples, or ambiguity resolution, so 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 verb+resource (a bounded rug-check verdict for ONE pump.fun mint) and enumerates the exact answer shape: 'avoid | caution | no_flags_observed', a one-line reason, flags with evidence, and probabilities. It explicitly contrasts itself with sibling check_pumpfun_risk ('Raw evidence'), so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Clear triggering condition: 'Use when you need one bounded answer for ONE pump.fun mint you are about to buy or hold,' and it routes to check_pumpfun_risk for raw evidence and to check_coverage (via schema) as a prerequisite. It stops short of naming when-not to use it (e.g., batch cases that belong to check_batch_risk), so it is not a full 5.

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