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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the paid-call cost and enumerates the classification taxonomy, which is real added value. However it omits data freshness/latency, default window behavior, and any caveat about how the labels are derived, so it stays at an adequate 3.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads the payment requirement before the data content. It is efficient, though the run-on enumeration of four signal labels and multiple chain names makes it harder to scan than a short structured breakdown would.

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?

Five optional parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema means the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it leaves the response shape fuzzy ('per-token inflow/outflow/net USD and signal' without field names or units). Missing default window, limit semantics, and freshness make it insufficient for confident 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 coverage is only 20% - only api_key is documented - so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names the chains (matching the chain enum) and implies a token filter via 'per-token', but says nothing about 'window' (1h/24h/7d), 'limit', or defaults for any of the five parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: whale transfers >= $100k across named chains, classified by exchange wallet labels with an explicit label vocabulary (EXCHANGE_INFLOW_BEARISH, etc.). The scope (perp taker flow, per-token net USD) is distinctive enough to separate it from whale_moves or binance_flows, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a cheaper sibling (free_binance_flows, whale_moves, whale_token) would suffice, and no note on how this differs from them. The only routing help is the price signal ($0.02 USDC), which is cost information, not usage guidance.

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