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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burdden. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the underlying logic ('relative to their recent average') and the concept of capital rotation. Yet it does not disclose data sources, limitations, or output format, so transparency is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Cross-token capital flow analysis'), then expands with concrete examples. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no wordiness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It conveys the core purpose and the rotation-detection concept, but it does not explain what the result rows look like or how to interpret relative_change_pct. With simple optional parameters, the description is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant semantic value for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only reinforces the idea of comparing time periods.

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 with specific verbs: 'Shows which fan tokens are gaining vs losing volume' and 'Detects rotation'. It names the resource (cross-token capital flow) and provides a concrete use case, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tokenintel_whale_flows, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage contexts such as detecting where capital goes after whale exits and comparing current vs prior period volume. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives and no exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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