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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely behavioral fact: a $0.01 USDC charge per call, which matters for agent budgeting. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (implicit from 'scan'), how far back 'recent' reaches, pagination, or rate limits — real gaps for a paid lookup 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?

Three short sentences with the core action first, then the return payload, then the cost. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description needn't explain return shape, and it gestures at it with 'whale-sized transfers and token movements'. However, it never defines the lookback window implied by 'recent', does not mention the Solana-only constraint the schema reveals, and gives no sense of result size — gaps that could cause misuse.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's phrase 'whale-sized' loosely motivates minSolAmount but adds no threshold semantics, units, or defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: scans a wallet's recent transaction history for large movements and returns whale-sized transfers. An agent can tell it apart from wallet_balance or transaction_parse at a high level, though it never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from volume_alert.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'scan...for large movements'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as transaction_parse for full history. The cost note gives the agent a decision input, but the choice between this and sibling alert tools is left to inference.

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