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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds material behavioral context: counterparty labels are included only where held, and null labels mean 'we have no label', not 'unknown' or 'safe'. This directly addresses a likely misinterpretation of the data.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The warning occupies only two sentences and every sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

The purpose and key interpretation trap are covered well, but with no output schema the description leaves the exact response shape, recency window, and `limit` behavior unstated. It is sufficient for safe invocation but not fully predictive of the returned data.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter semantics. It explicitly maps 'symbol' to 'filtered to one asset', which is helpful, but `limit` is left entirely implicit without any explanation of its behavior or constraints.

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 states a concrete deliverable: 'Recent large on-chain transfers, optionally filtered to one asset.' This is a specific verb+resource statement and is clearly distinct from the broader flow and entity tools in the sibling list.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant and gives a strong caveat about interpreting 'whale' as a size threshold rather than identity. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage guidance about null labels and exchange transfers is valuable and prevents misuse.

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