Get live decaying snipe tax for a bonding curve recipient, including exemption status and active tax window.
Live decaying snipe tax for a recipient on a curve (99% at launch → ~0% after 3s), exemption status, launchedAt, seconds since launch, and whether the tax window is still active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipient | No | Recipient to check (default: curve deployer) | |
| curveAddress | Yes | Bonding curve contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the dynamic decay of the tax (99% at launch → ~0% after 3s), lists the returned data (exemption status, launchedAt, seconds since launch, active window), and implies this is a read-only lookup. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or cover edge cases, but it is substantially more transparent than a generic getter.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core concept and packs in the key behavioral and output details without wasted words. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the returned fields: tax percentage, exemption status, launchedAt, seconds since launch, and active-window flag. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not describe the output structure or mention any error conditions.
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%, and the schema already explains both curveAddress and recipient, including the default for recipient. The description adds color by referring to 'recipient on a curve' but does not provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond 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?
The description clearly identifies the resource (snipe tax on a bonding curve) and the recipient, and the unique 'snipe tax' concept distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Gets' or 'Returns', so the action is implied rather than stated.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like pons_quote_buy or pons_pair_token_economics. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the description's focus on snipe tax data, with no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.