Recent smart-money wallet activity — moves by high-scoring funds, market makers, and notable wallets.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_smart_money"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: recency and inclusion criteria (high-scoring funds, market makers, notable wallets). However, it does not disclose rate limits, data-source delay, pagination, or output format.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every phrase adds meaning and the structure is easy to parse quickly.
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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the high-level meaning of the returned data. However, there is no output schema, so the response shape and recency bounds remain unspecified, and no distinction is made from the similar get_whale_movements 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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description enriches the output semantics even though no parameter-level disambiguation is needed.
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 phrase 'Recent smart-money wallet activity — moves by high-scoring funds, market makers, and notable wallets' clearly identifies the resource and defines what smart-money means, which helps distinguish it from generic wallet tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_whale_movements, get_wallet_intel, or get_trading_signals. The semantics imply a use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.