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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'right now' (real-time) and mentions filtering, but it omits what the response contains (e.g., list with TVL change percentages), the time window (24h, 7d), or any operational constraints. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with the filter instruction. The second sentence, 'The smart money flow radar,' is somewhat marketing-flavored but not wasteful. Overall concise and well-structured, though not perfectly lean.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description is minimally viable: it conveys what it does and that it supports filtering. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't specify the response format or time period, which a complete description should at least hint at. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds examples like 'DEX, Lending' which are also present in the schema, providing no additional meaning beyond what's structurally already known. Baseline 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 states the tool shows 'top protocols gaining and losing TVL right now,' which is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like chain_flows (chain-level) and stablecoin_flows (stablecoin-level). The mention of filtering by category adds further specificity.

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 gives clear context: this is for protocol-level TVL flows, filterable by category like DEX and Lending. It implies when to use it versus chain or stablecoin tools, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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