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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the live feed nature, the $0.09 via x402 cost, the Blockscout source, the wallet labeling dimensions (contract, named, scam-flagged), and the output fields. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but it covers the key operational traits for a read-only feed.

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 information-dense without being bloated: it covers purpose, use case, cost, output fields, source, and related tools in under 100 words. The Nansen-style phrase is somewhat promotional but adds a useful conceptual anchor.

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 feed tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough: it lists the output fields, supported networks and tokens, cost, live behavior, and how to chain into sibling tools. There is no output schema to clarify return structure, so the description's field list is essential and present.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents chain, limit, token, and min_usd well. The description mentions supported token types and chains, which mostly repeats schema content rather than adding new parameter semantics. The x_payment parameter remains undocumented, but the high baseline keeps this at 3.

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 that this tool returns live whale alerts for the largest recent transfers of specific tokens on Base or Ethereum. It names the exact data fields returned and distinguishes itself from related tools by describing how each whale chains into smart_money_wallet_activity and wallet_portfolio.

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 clear usage context: it is positioned as a smart-money/whale-watching feed for trading and copy-trade agents to poll. It also hints at related tools, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or specify an alternative condition.

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