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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the cost per call ($0.45–$0.50) and mentioning that free alternatives exist, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences total, with the paid notice in brackets. It is front-loaded with the core offering and includes a practical pointer to free alternatives. No filler or redundant text.

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 the read-only annotations and fully documented schema, the description provides sufficient context about the three data types and the paid nature. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a list-oriented data tool with no output schema, this is not a major gap and is adequately covered by the setting.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions with enums fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic flavor (e.g., 'accumulation', 'profitable-wallet cohort') but doesn't significantly go beyond the schema's own enum explanations.

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 identifies the tool's function: providing live intelligence on large capital across three specific venues (on-chain transfers/accumulation, Hyperliquid perp positioning, smart-money cohort). It uses specific resource nouns and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming its three data categories and pointing to free alternatives.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (when live, paid intelligence is needed) and explicitly directs users to list_einstein_capabilities for free alternatives. However, it doesn't name specific sibling tools or state when not to use it beyond the free-alternative suggestion.

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