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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses the $0.02 cost, the heuristic nature of large-trader labels, the lack of chain-wide coverage, the dependency on Helius/Etherscan in wallet mode, and the explicit statement that it does not claim complete balances or whale labels. This is far more than the schema provides.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: a cost warning, an asset-mode summary, and a wallet-mode disclosure with limitations. It front-loads the most operationally critical fact (payment) and packs substantial caveats into a compact, readable form with no filler.

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 complex two-mode tool with no annotations and an output schema that covers return values, the description is remarkably complete. It covers cost, data source, heuristic labels, chain-wide limitations, wallet-mode configuration, and the scope of returned data. An agent has all the behavioral context needed to decide whether and how to invoke it; only the explicit choice between asset and wallet is left to the mode names, which are self-evident.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond it. It explains the difference between the asset and wallet modes, ties the concept of 'large' trades to the min_transaction_usd threshold, and clarifies that wallet mode's address parameter selects a wallet rather than a token. This adds value without repeating schema details.

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 uses a specific verb ('summarizes') and resource ('large public GeckoTerminal-indexed DEX trades') and clearly distinguishes the asset and wallet modes. It tells an agent exactly what the tool does without ambiguity, and the cost warning at the start adds a unique operational identifier.

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 provides clear context for both modes: asset mode analyzes token trades, while wallet mode uses Helius/Etherscan when configured and returns only recent indexed transactions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give negative guidance, but the mode-specific details effectively inform an agent about when each variant is appropriate.

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