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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation ('read') and lists output contents and supported chains, but omits details like data freshness windows, rate limits, error behavior, or whether historical data is available. The phrase 'right now' implies current activity but is ambiguous.

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 one dense sentence, but efficiently packs the core purpose, output details, use case, related tools, and supported chains. While splitting into multiple sentences would improve readability, there is no wasted wording.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the key return fields (net flows, methods, activity level, counterparties, ETH balance) and connected tools, giving a clear mental model. It lacks details on time ranges or response size, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 67% (wallet and chain are described, x_payment is not). The description restates the chain options and wallet address format but does not add meaning beyond the schema, nor does it explain the x_payment parameter. The tool's main parameters are relatively self-explanatory.

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 a real-time smart-money wallet activity profile, listing specific output fields (net token flows, transaction methods, activity level, top counterparties, ETH balance). It distinguishes itself from siblings like whale_transfer_alerts (alerts) and wallet_portfolio (holdings) by focusing on current activity and flows.

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 gives explicit context: it is for copy-trade, whale-watching, and risk agents working on wallets surfaced by whale_transfer_alerts. It also outlines the chain of use (flows into token_security_check and dex_token_data). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but 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.