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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds useful semantic behavior: the net_usd field is only present when the token can be priced, which is a meaningful caveat. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or response shape, but those are not critical given the annotations.

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 three short sentences that pack the core meaning and an interpretive note with minimal waste. It is front-loaded with the primary subject and uses no filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core semantics but omits important details like the response format, time horizon, and the effect of limit. Without an output schema, these gaps make the description only partially complete.

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?

The only parameter, limit, is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds nothing about how limit affects results (e.g., number of tokens returned). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing 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 identifies the resource (exchange netflow), the granularity (per-token), and key metrics (flow, net_usd). It clearly states what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the similarly named sibling get_exchange_flows.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about use cases or prerequisites. The interpretation of inflow/outflow hints at analytical uses, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of sibling tools.

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