Rich-list balance changes over a μNOID threshold vs the cached snapshot.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_whale_moves"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| threshold_micronoid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions comparison against a cached snapshot, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how fresh the cache is, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response shape looks like.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its compactness is appropriate for a retrieval tool, though the dense jargon ('rich-list', 'μNOID') reduces immediate readability.
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 two undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It omits key operational details such as limit behavior, threshold format, snapshot freshness, and when this tool should be selected over related tools.
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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It implies that threshold_micronoid is a μNOID-denominated threshold, but it does not clarify the expected format, defaults, or what the limit parameter controls.
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 identifies a specific data product: rich-list balance changes above a μNOID threshold compared with a cached snapshot. That is clear enough to distinguish it from generic balance checks, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as get_balance or get_mempool_highlights.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balance, get_mempool_highlights, or get_hashrate_shift. The description states what data is returned but leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.
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.