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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses caching (60 seconds), free access, no authentication required, and interprets the NadHawk score thresholds. It also explains API key auto-provisioning for Zambo MCP users, which are critical behaviors.

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 well-structured: it first states the primary output, then elaborates on tiers and scores, followed by use cases and API key information. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no input parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers the tool's behavior, output format, and interpretation. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns and how to use it.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by detailing the returned fields, tier meanings, and score interpretation, which aids an agent in understanding the output even without an explicit output schema.

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 returns top contracts and whale wallets on Monad mainnet, specifying counts (top 10, top 8) and additional data like district breakdown and tier levels. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which cover diverse other functionalities like agent management, trading, or auditing.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'contract due diligence, whale tracking, or mapping what's actually active on Monad before deploying or integrating.' It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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