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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral nuances: the transfer feed only covers ERC-20 tokens, native assets fall back to USDT exchange flows, and the tool interprets withdrawals as accumulation and deposits as potential sell pressure. This adds substantive context about data provenance and meaning that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct job: scope/components, asset-class caveat, interpretation, and alternative tool. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the prose is dense but not verbose. No filler or repeated schema content.

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?

For a read-only aggregate tool with no output schema, the description covers data sources, scope, caveats, and interpretation. It does not specify the response shape or group/pagination behavior, but with only two simple parameters and a clear aggregation purpose, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, with both `symbol` and `min_usd` already clearly documented. The description reinforces the threshold concept ('above a USD threshold') and the coin scope, but it does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('whale context for one coin'), then enumerates the concrete components: exchange reserve changes, Binance perps positioning, and large transfers. It also explicitly states the level of detail ('cohort-level, no individual wallets'), which distinguishes it from flow_whale_positions without needing to open that tool.

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 opens with the scope ('for one coin') and immediately contrasts with the sibling tool: 'For specific whale wallets and their live positions use flow_whale_positions.' It also provides interpretive guidance on when withdrawals/deposits matter, making the intended use case clear. This is explicit routing between alternatives.

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