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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: keyless calls return multiples and records, USD magnitudes require an active developer plan, and result shape changes depending on whether a single coin or a list is passed. This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core differentiator and key metrics. It packs multiple behavioral notes into a few sentences without padding. Slightly dense phrasing like 'Keyless returns multiples and records' could be clearer, but it remains efficiently structured.

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 presence of an output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description covers the remaining important invocation details: list handling, keyless limitations, plan-gated USD magnitudes, and the semantic positioning among sibling tools. No critical missing information prevents correct selection or use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the coin and pair parameters. The description adds contextual emphasis about comma-separated lists and return-shape changes, but this mostly restates what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a per-coin whale-flow comparison against that coin's own history, naming specific outputs (multiple of daily average, N-day-high flags, buy share now vs 7d). It positions itself as the 'is this unusual for THIS coin' call, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other whale metrics.

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 gives a clear selection criterion — this is the call for judging whether current whale flow is unusual relative to a coin's own logged history. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the framing and title make the intended use fairly unambiguous.

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