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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers the two things an agent most needs: this is a paid call ($0.02 USDC on Base via x402) and it only covers the token's deepest WETH/USDC pools, so thin-liquidity tokens may yield little. It also enumerates what the payload contains (size, side, wallet, tx, volume, net flow, top wallets). It stops short of rate limits or empty-result behavior.

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 the capability and return content in one dense sentence, then the payment requirement as a second sentence. No filler, though the primary sentence is long and could be split for scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe results — and it does, listing every notable field (USD size, side, wallet, transaction, buy/sell volume, net flow, top wallets) alongside the payment model and pool-scope limitation. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description only restates that the window is 'last N minutes' and that only the largest trades are returned, without adding format or boundary detail (the minUsd/limit semantics live in the schema). Note the schema's own minutes description wrongly references Arbitrum ('capped at 12,000 blocks, about 50 minutes on Arbitrum') on an OP Mainnet tool, which the description does not correct.

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 and resource (whale/large-trade tracker for an ERC-20 on OP Mainnet) plus the exact scope: buys and sells in the last N minutes on the token's deepest WETH/USDC pools via Uniswap v3 or Velodrome. An agent can distinguish it from optimism_token_snapshot or optimism_transaction_summary without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the time-window and size framing (use it to see big trades in a lookback window), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of the sibling aggregate tools like optimism_token_snapshot, and no guidance for tokens without deep WETH/USDC pools.

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