Hedera token whale movements and unusual transfer patterns. 0.2 HBAR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recent transactions to return (default 25, max 100) | |
| api_key | Yes | Your HederaIntel API key | |
| token_id | Yes | Hedera token ID to monitor (e.g. 0.0.123456) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only safe behavior (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool focuses on whale movements and unusual transfers, and introduces a cost of 0.2 HBAR, which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, or any failure modes.
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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core function and a cost note. It is a model of brevity with no filler or redundancy.
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 simple read-only API with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but stops short of explaining what the caller receives or any response structure. Since no output schema exists, the description should compensate by outlining return expectations, but it only gives a high-level monitoring concept.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on token_id, api_key, or limit beyond what the schema already provides. The '0.2 HBAR' note is unrelated to 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's focus: Hedera token whale movements and unusual transfer patterns. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'monitors' or 'returns', the noun phrase plus the tool name makes the function clear. It differentiates from siblings like token_price or token_analyze by emphasizing whale/transfer monitoring.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as token_analyze or hcs_monitor. '0.2 HBAR' is a cost indicator, not an instruction about appropriate use. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., contract read vs. contract call vs. contract analyze; hcs monitor vs. hcs query vs. hcs understand). Even within closely related groups, descriptions clearly differentiate the specific purpose, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a domain_action pattern (e.g., contract_analyze, token_monitor, hcs_verify_record), but some are verb_noun (get_terms, confirm_terms) and a few are noun_noun (account_info, token_price, fixatum_score). While not perfectly uniform, the prefixes make the intended domain clear and the overall structure is readable.
With 25 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical MCP scope. While each tool serves a specific niche across multiple Hedera domains (contracts, HCS, tokens, identity, governance, Fixatum), the sheer number could increase selection complexity, but it remains within the borderline range rather than being excessive.
The server covers a broad range of read/analyze operations across major Hedera areas, plus essential write/verification capabilities (hcs_write_record, hcs_verify_record) and an onboarding flow (get_terms, confirm_terms). Minor gaps exist, such as no token transfer history or unregister/update for Fixatum, but the core analytical purpose is well covered.