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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them by disclosing the required pass tier and the hourly-series-with-daily-roll-ups granularity. It stops short of describing pagination, response size, or what happens when the entitlement check fails.

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?

Leads with the terminal name and then front-loads the data coverage before the access caveat, so the most important information is early. It is a single dense run-on sentence, but nearly every clause carries a distinct data type rather than 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?

There is no output schema, and for a multi-source aggregator the description omits any indication of response shape, default behavior when asset is omitted, or how the series are keyed. Coverage of data content and access requirements is solid, but the call-and-interpret picture is incomplete.

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 coverage is 50% (asset is described, window is not), so the description is expected to compensate. It does list the window values (24h/7d/30d/90d) and the asset universe (BTC, ETH, SOL, WLFI), but since windows are already an enum in the schema this adds little, and it does not explain what omitting asset returns or what a 'daily roll-up' means for the series.

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 concrete retrieval target and enumerates exactly which series it covers (stablecoin supply, tokenised gold/treasuries/stocks, ETF flows, open interest) plus time windows, so the resource is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-duplicate siblings like get_etf_flows, get_stablecoin_net_mint, get_open_interest or get_money_flows, which it appears to supersede.

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 only usage guidance is an entitlement gate ('Needs the Flows Terminal pass, a Builder or Scale pass, or PRO'), which tells the agent about access, not about when to pick this tool over its many overlapping siblings. There is no statement of when this aggregate is preferable to the single-metric tools, and no exclusions.

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