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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns recent large transactions, lists the transaction types, and emphasizes cross-chain coverage and near-real-time intent. It does not disclose caveats like time window, whale threshold, or output structure, but these are less critical for a read-only query tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core definition and follows with a user-oriented use case. Every sentence 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 a simple tool with two optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and invocation. However, there is no output schema and no indication of what fields each movement contains, what 'recent' means, or how 'whale' is defined, leaving moderate gaps for an agent assessing whether the tool can answer a specific question.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the input schema already explain the chain and limit parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific resource and action: recent large 'whale' transactions (buys, sells, transfers) across 34+ EVM chains. It is specific enough to understand the tool's domain, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_smart_money, whose name suggests a closely related purpose.

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 phrase 'Use to see what smart money is doing right now' gives a clear use case and implies the tool is for monitoring recent major moves. However, it provides no guidance on when NOT to use it or how to choose between this and related siblings like get_smart_money or get_trading_signals.

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