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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that only wallets with ≥5 resolved signals receive a score (honest, never fabricated), that data is DB-backed with a 5-min cache, and retention details (365d, permanent monthly archive). This provides significant context beyond the basic function.

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 main purpose, then elaborates on data format, filtering, and backend details. It is relatively concise given the amount of information conveyed, though it could be slightly more streamlined. Every sentence provides useful information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly details the return format: 'One row per wallet per day: wallet address, chain, label, composite score (0-100), win rate, average return %, and sample count.' It also covers filtering, data source (whale_score_daily table), and retention. With only 2 simple parameters, this description is fully adequate for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context beyond schema: days default 30, max 90, chain optional, and the note about only wallets with ≥5 signals receive a score (which relates to the data returned). This adds meaningful value.

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 states it gets daily whale score history, ranking wallets by composite score over up to 90 days. It specifies the resource (whale scores) and verb (get history). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling whale tools, the specificity of 'daily historical composite scores for tracked whale wallets' distinguishes its purpose well.

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 mentions it is 'useful for tracking smart-money wallet performance trends' and explains how to filter by chain. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whale_activity, whale_daily_summary) or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not contrasted.

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