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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: data scope (BTC/ETH/SOL/TRX + major exchanges), update frequency ('updated ~every 5min'), and the distinction from aggregated summary. However, it does not disclose behavior around pagination, default date range, or how to interpret the returned transactions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key features, followed by usage guidance and an alternative. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. This is a model of conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and usage, but leaves critical parameter details (tickers format, date_range values, pagination semantics) undocumented. It mentions the data scope and update frequency, but does not explain what the returned data looks like. Given the complexity and lack of structural support, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only clarifies min_amount ('filterable by min_amount USD'), leaving page, items, tickers, and date_range semantically unexplained. The agent must infer tickers format and date_range allowed values from the schema alone, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 states what the tool provides: 'Large crypto on-chain and exchange transactions for BTC/ETH/SOL/TRX plus major exchanges'. It also distinguishes from a sibling by referencing whale_summary. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level criterion of a specific verb+resource.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Call this when the user asks about whale moves or big transfers'. It also provides a clear alternative: 'use whale_summary for the aggregated buy-vs-sell read', which implicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool. This is exactly the kind of when/when-not/alternative guidance the rubric rewards.

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