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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 24h window, the $10K+ threshold, 'verified on-chain', and that futures orders are reported separately from DEX buys/sells. It doesn't cover rate limits or data freshness beyond the window, so not a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the DEX whale flow data and then the futures data, with the optional filter last. Slightly heavy with parentheticals, but every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers scope, time window, threshold, and the DEX/futures separation. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though a comparison cue against siblings would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter and already documents ticker or contract address. The description only restates that the filter is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific resource and data type: aggregated on-chain whale DEX swaps ($10K+) and Hyperliquid futures orders per coin, with buys/sells, net flow, and wallet counts. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like analyze_token or scan_token, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (24h whale flow summary, optionally narrowed by token). The description mentions the optional narrowing, which is a light usage cue, but it never says when to choose this over analyze_token or scan_token, nor any exclusions.

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