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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: statelessness, caller-owned cursor, and the full list of alert types. However, it doesn't mention whether the watchlist is optional or describe the return format, which leaves some gaps.

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 four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: what it does, how to call it, what alerts to expect, and the stateless behavior. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the event types, severity grading, and cursor ownership. It lacks explicit return-format details and the optionality of the watchlist, but those are minor given the moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful context about tokens/wallets as a watchlist and the 'since' as a cursor, but the schema already documents these parameters well. The added alert-type list enriches understanding but doesn't deeply change parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Poll-based event detection covering spot + Jupiter Perps', which states a specific verb (detect/check) and resource (events on spot and Jupiter Perps). It lists exact alert types and is clearly distinct from sibling tools, none of which mention alerts or polling.

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 clearly implies a polling pattern: pass a since timestamp, get alerts since then, and update the timestamp as a cursor. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when-not to use, but the tool is unique among siblings so the guidance is sufficient.

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