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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds behavior beyond annotations: raw notional is banded, it's market data not a signal, and behavior for empty kind. No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph that packs in all necessary information without unnecessary words. It could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullet points for each kind), but it is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 four parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema (implied), and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: parameter constraints, behavior for empty/unknown values, the nature of the data (banded, not signal). There are no gaps in understanding how to use the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value: for kind, it explains the two options and their endpoints; for symbol, it notes case/space-insensitivity; for window, it gives the valid range; for exchange, it explains empty/all and error on unknown. This extra detail justifies a 4.

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 the tool's purpose: providing large-player or forced-flow intel grouped by kind. It distinguishes between 'whales' and 'liquidations' with specific endpoint references. The tool's role is distinct from siblings like get_signals and get_flow, which is reinforced by the statement that it is market data, not a signal or advice.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each kind: for whales, a symbol is required; for liquidations, an empty symbol gives market-wide top movers. It also notes that empty/unknown kind returns a menu. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_flow or get_market, though the context is clear enough.

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