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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the exchange-pressure interpretation, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or window limits. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, the first states the core purpose and the second adds domain interpretation. No filler or redundant restatement of the title/schema.

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?

The description is too sparse for an AI agent to fully understand the output or call parameters: there is no output schema, no explanation of the time-window bounds or how limit behaves, and no definition of a labelled entity. The safe annotations lower the risk but do not complete the picture.

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?

Both parameters have no schema descriptions (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain 'hours' or 'limit'. 'Over the window' only weakly maps to hours, and limit is entirely unaddressed, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific resource ('labelled entity') and measure ('whale flow') over a window, with a precise semantic mapping of inflows and outflows. This scope separates it from siblings such as get_exchange_flows and get_whale_transactions without needing to open those tools.

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 prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Although the inflow/outflow interpretation implies a use case for distribution/accumulation analysis, no sibling alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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