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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that the feed is de-identified (no wallets, addresses, tags), describes what the free vs premium outputs contain, and warns that the signal is unvalidated and not financial advice. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 information-dense but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then adds de-identification, parameter options, access tiers, and a caveat. It's a bit long but each sentence contributes meaningful detail, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameters, access levels, output contents (free vs premium fields), and the unvalidated warning. It does not explain return format or error handling, but it is reasonably complete for a data-lookup 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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining window_hours with explicit valid values (6/12/24/48), and clarifying that session_token comes from verify_wallet_ownership and payment is an x402 proof. It covers all three parameters, though it doesn't give exact format specifications.

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 opens with a specific question 'Which tickers are smart-money / KOL wallets net-buying right now?' which clearly states the tool's function. It further defines the resource as a 'de-identified market-wide net-USD accumulation feed' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_whale_alerts by emphasizing no wallet/address/tag data.

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 provides clear context: it explains the free vs premium tiers and how to unlock full data via session_token or x402 payment, and adds a caveat that the signal is unvalidated. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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