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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial context: the signals are live and verifiable, require no API key, draw from an immutable on-chain ledger, and that whale wallets are auto-tracked at a 1%-of-supply threshold with snapshots at multiple horizons. It discloses both the data provenance and the tracking methodology, well beyond the safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its core signals, and each clause maps to a concrete output group, so little is wasted. It is however a single very dense sentence with heavy parenthetical nesting, which slightly hurts readability.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned signal groups (tax reserve, whale in/outflows and top movers with tx, daily snapshots with 1d/7d/30d trends, the $100+ buy ledger, burn momentum) and notes verifiability and no-API-key access. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret results.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning to add beyond the schema. The description uses the freed space to describe the return composition instead.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Live smart-money signals for $BOBAI') and then enumerates exactly which signals the tool returns: tax-reserve buy pressure, whale flows/holdings, a $100+ buy ledger, and burn momentum. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming bobai_activity and bobai_wallet_balance as the tools for adjacent questions.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('read buy pressure and what large holders do') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them ('for proof of past burns use bobai_activity, for one wallet's balance bobai_wallet_balance'). No ambiguity about routing.

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