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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details like 'trustset excluded' and 'Wrapped in the proof envelope', which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the proof envelope affects the response. The description is informative but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (data scope, source context, proof envelope). It is front-loaded with the core action and adds no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned, the data scope, exclusions, and a notable behavioral trait (proof envelope). However, it does not describe the exact return format or pagination behavior, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, leaving minor gaps in context.

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 only documents a 'limit' integer with a default of 25, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds semantic meaning by interpreting it as 'the last N' events, clarifying that limit controls the count returned. This directly helps the agent understand the parameter's role, though it does not mention any minimum, maximum, or validation 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('whale events'), then adds scope details: 'XRP-denominated', 'tagged-watchlist', and 'trustset excluded'. It also references the homepage globe pulse feed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_whale_watchlist by showing it provides a combined event feed.

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 implies usage context by stating 'Same feed the homepage globe pulse reads', which tells the agent this is the source for a specific UI element. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_whale_watchlist) or provide any exclusion criteria. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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