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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does the highest-value piece of that work: it discloses the access model (0.02 USDC via x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, or API key with no per-call charge, auto-paid by capable clients). It does not state read-only/non-destructive nature or describe the response shape, but the 'aggregated' wording makes the read semantics clear.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to use it, then access mechanics in a bracketed aside. No redundant sentences; only the payment note lengthens it, and that earns its place.

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 four-optional-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, and cost/auth. It doesn't specify the shape of the aggregated netflow results (ranking, fields, units) or pagination behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3; the limit, chains, timeframe and include_labels params are all documented in the schema. The description only adds the framing that results are aggregated across the whole market, which mildly clarifies scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource (smart-money netflows), a scope (aggregated, market-wide across all tokens), and what it reveals (accumulation vs. distribution). It implicitly separates itself from token-level siblings like get_smart_money_flows, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use it when the user asks what smart money is buying or selling, or wants to see market-wide on-chain trends.' No when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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