List all watched wallets with their alias, threshold, tags, notes, and last snapshot. Optionally filter by tag.
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": "pg_whale_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Optional tag filter | |
| limit | No | Max results (max 500) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields and optional filtering, but it does not explain pagination behavior, ordering, or any side effects or limitations beyond the schema's max limit. The core behavior is clear, but deeper behavioral traits are absent.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, output fields, and optional filter. It could improve by noting pagination or result ordering, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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% for both parameters (tag and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the tag filter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it omits mention of the limit parameter entirely, leaving schema to fully define it.
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 action (List), the resource (all watched wallets), and the specific fields included (alias, threshold, tags, notes, last snapshot), plus an optional filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pg_whale_add, pg_whale_alerts, and pg_whale_scan.
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 usage by stating what the tool does, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The optional tag filter is mentioned, but there is no exclusion of sibling tools or mention of scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
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.