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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: results are aggregated, day-by-day, multi-chain, and explicitly exclude whales/large holders/influencers. This is genuine behavioral context, not just a safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines the data captured, and the second routes the agent to the correct sibling. The exclusion and chain scope are front-loaded and every phrase 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 tool selection, the description is complete enough: it gives the historical intent, exclusions, supported chains, and the close sibling alternative, while output schema covers return shape. It does not state defaults such as the 30-day lookback or maximum 4-year range, but the input schema handles those details.

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?

The description only gestures at date range and chains, and the chain list mostly repeats the schema enum. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not compensate by explaining the request envelope, dateRange formats, token filters, or the include/label options, even though the nested schema itself is detailed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the day-by-day history of aggregated smart trader and fund token balances,' and adds scope by naming the excluded groups and supported chains. It also names a sibling for the current snapshot, so an agent can distinguish it from smart_traders_and_funds_token_balances without inspecting that tool's 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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to see how smart money holdings changed over time; use smart_traders_and_funds_token_balances for the current snapshot.' That gives a clear decision rule and points to the most likely sibling alternative.

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