whale-wallet-trackerLarge USDC transfers on Base over the most recent blocks (default ~300), from confirmed Transfer logs: amount, sender, receiver, tx hash, block. Price: 0.0050 USDC per call (first call free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| windowBlocks | No | Blocks to scan, 25-600 (default 300, ~2s per block) | |
| minUsdcAmount | No | Minimum transfer size in USDC (min 1000, default 100000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / minUsdcAmount / descriptionPrevious value: -"Minimum transfer size in USDC (default 100000)"New value: +"Minimum transfer size in USDC (min 1000, default 100000)"Input schema / properties / windowBlocksAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Blocks to scan, 25-600 (default 300, ~2s per block)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema context: a per-call price of 0.0050 USDC with the first call free, and that results come from confirmed Transfer logs. It stops short of noting latency or rate limits beyond the implicit ~2s/block.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero filler: scope first, then returned fields, then cost. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields (amount, sender, receiver, tx hash, block) and discloses pricing, which is what an agent needs to decide and call. It lacks guidance on what counts as a 'whale' threshold beyond the schema default and has no sibling routing.
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 both windowBlocks and minUsdcAmount are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description only restates the ~300 default, adding no new syntax or trade-off guidance beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific resource (large USDC transfers), chain (Base), scope (most recent blocks, default ~300) and data source (confirmed Transfer logs), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from siblings like liquidation-monitor or token-deploy-radar. The returned fields are enumerated, making the tool's output shape unambiguous.
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 purpose implies a whale-monitoring use case, but the description never states when to pick this over related siblings (e.g. token-due-diligence or liquidity-health) or any preconditions/exclusions. Usage is left to inference from the resource description alone.
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.