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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the access-tier difference (Keyless vs Starter and up), the exact fields returned at each tier, and the explicit 'Descriptive, not a forecast' caveat that prevents an agent from treating it as predictive.

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 every sentence earns its place: what the tool returns, how to phrase queries, access-tier behavior, and a caveat. It front-loads the core resource and follows with usage and behavior details without any filler.

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 output schema, annotations, and optional parameters, the description is complete. It explains the live-setup scope, field categories, access-level return differences, and the descriptive-only nature of the data, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including defaults and the coin/pair alias. The description adds some contextual meaning by showing a natural-language coin-filter query ('is there a setup on SOL'), but it does not substantially go beyond the schema for actual parameter 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 clearly identifies the tool as the engine's live whale-flow setups, with concrete fields (state, direction, catch type, severity, age, price move). The use phrases ('what setups are live', 'is there a setup on SOL') and 'not a forecast' distinguish it from the many sibling market-data tools.

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?

It gives explicit query patterns for when to use the tool: 'what setups are live', 'is there a setup on SOL', 'what is the engine watching'. It also warns the data is descriptive, not a forecast, which discourages misuse, though it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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