collect-fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses the preview behavior and the requirement for user approval before confirm, plus the batching behavior. It stops short of explicitly saying 'broadcasts an on-chain transaction' or irreversible effects, but the core safety-relevant behavior is covered.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and fee context. Every clause earns its place: fee percentage, tiering, payout aggregation, and the preview/confirm ordering.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the fee mechanism, payout scope, and the critical preview/confirm workflow. It could mention prerequisites like having accrued fees or the concrete effect of confirm:true, but the existing coverage is strong for a 4-parameter 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by operationalizing dry_run and confirm ('Preview first (no confirm), then call with confirm: true'), which is not explicit in the schema. It also provides business context for what the fees are, but does not over-repeat schema details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Claim') with a clear resource ('accrued pump.fun creator fees') and adds fee context (0.30%, tiered) plus batch payout across all coins. This strongly differentiates collect-fees from sibling tools like launch, lock, or fund-agent.

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?

The description gives an explicit workflow: preview first without confirm, then call with confirm:true after user approval. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is clear and actionable.

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