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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that data is aggregated from CEX exchanges in real-time, defines the sell_ratio formula, and warns that the 'distribution'/'accumulation' labels are descriptive, not a signal. This prevents misuse without requiring additional annotation context.

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: it states what the tool does, defines the metric, explains the label thresholds, and then routes to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description provides enough return-value context by naming the sell_ratio and the label thresholds. It also exposes the aggregation source and real-time nature. Minor gaps remain about exact response shape or per-exchange breakdown, but the core calling context is well covered.

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 per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it does add global context about what the ratio means and how the labels are derived, which complements the parameter definitions.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('real-time whale distribution data for a fan token'), and defines the core metric (sell_ratio). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming tokenintel_whale_trades and tokenintel_dex_whales as 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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS for aggregate buy/sell pressure on CEX' and directs the agent to tokenintel_whale_trades for individual trade rows and tokenintel_dex_whales for on-chain swap whales. This gives both positive usage context and explicit exclusions.

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