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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'net token flows' and 'accumulation/distribution', but does not contradict annotations. No mention of rate limits, pagination behavior, or data timeframes beyond what schema provides.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Get net token flows from smart money addresses') and adds a clarifying detail about accumulation/distribution. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the simple 2-parameter schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a read-only data query. It explains what the tool does and hints at output structure ('Shows accumulation/distribution'), though it does not detail return format or pagination behavior. This is adequate for a filtered-list tool of this complexity.

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 both 'chain' (enum with 'Chain to query') and 'per_page' ('Results per page' with default). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but not more.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get net token flows from smart money addresses' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'Shows accumulation/distribution by funds and whales' to convey the output focus. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nansen_smart_money_holdings (holdings) and nansen_smart_money_trades (trades).

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 implies usage for analyzing smart money net token flows but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nansen_smart_money_holdings or nansen_smart_money_trades. There is no 'use this when' or exclusion context, so it remains at an implied level.

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