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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool shows who is pumping money, but it does not disclose output structure, data timeliness, sorting, or potential limitations such as pagination or chain-specific behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 concept, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value by explaining the signal types and the output focus, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the main purpose and result category (who is pumping money), but lacks detail about the exact response format, such as whether results are grouped by signal type or the ordering. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both `chain` and `limit`, covering all parameters at 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score 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 specifies the tool's function: provide smart money signals including whale activity (boosted tokens) and community takeovers (CTO detection). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming its unique focus on whale movements and community takeovers, making its selection unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for identifying whale-driven tokens and community takeovers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is limited to the inferred use case.

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