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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the cost (0.01 USDC) and natural language support, which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, describe return format, or mention any rate limits or prerequisites, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by natural language examples and cost. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (8 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to phrase queries, and cost. It does not explicitly describe response structure, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's tracking nature make this less critical. The default parameters and enum are documented in the schema, so the description is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented clearly (chain, input, limit, etc.). The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3. The natural language examples imply 'input' usage but do not add technical details.

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 tracks net capital flows from Smart Money wallets, with specific examples of natural language queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nansen_smart_money_holdings, which focus on holdings rather than 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 provides concrete usage examples ('are whales accumulating ETH?', 'smart money flows for PEPE last 7 days') that clarify the intended query style. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the natural language focus and flow-tracking purpose give a clear sense of appropriate use.

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