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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it defines each event type, gives concrete thresholds ($100k, $1M+, a quarter), explains what the payload includes, and notes that to_exchange events are reported at any size. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then supplies only relevant detail about event types, payload fields, and filters. It is dense and could be easier to scan with bullets, but nearly every sentence 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?

For a complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers watched entities, event definitions, payload contents, filter ranges, and even the watch-list endpoint. It leaves some operational details unstated, notably the limit/pagination behavior, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 must compensate. It does for most parameters: hours is bounded to 1–720, chain is enumerated as ethereum|solana|hyperliquid, symbol is identified as a coin, and the type filter is implicitly mapped to the event types listed earlier. The limit parameter is not explained at all, leaving one gap.

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 gives a specific resource and scope: events from a live watch list of private wallets with large token-supply share and Hyperliquid positions with large open-interest share. It distinguishes itself from broader whale tools by repeatedly emphasizing the 'watched' list and by naming the exact event types, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_hl_whales.

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?

Usage is implied by phrases like 'what the watched large holders did' and by the list of event types and filters. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hl_whales or get_top_traders, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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