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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Live', 'auto-tracked', 'immutable on-chain ledger', and 'All verifiable, no API key', which go beyond the annotations and tell the agent about freshness, provenance, and access requirements.

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 dense but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded ('Live smart-money signals for $BOBAI') followed by clearly separated data categories. Every clause adds a distinct signal type or timeframe, so there is little filler even though the sentence is long.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It covers concrete metrics and timeframes: 24h/7d in/outflows, top movers with tx, 1d/7d/30d holdings trends, and $100+ buy ledger entries. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though exact response formatting is not specified.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings left to document. The description appropriately focuses on the data the tool returns rather than input semantics.

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 states that the tool provides live smart-money signals for $BOBAI and enumerates the signal categories: tax reserve/buyback pressure, whale flows and holdings, recent $100+ buys, and burn momentum. It is specific to the token and its content, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like bobai_price or bobai_burned.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description implies usefulness for whale/smart-money tracking but never states explicit alternatives, exclusions, or a decision rule for selection.

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