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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: pool tokens are included only after a simulated sell succeeds. This helps the agent interpret the result set correctly.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the core selection criterion and scope, and the second adds the important pool-token caveat. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is largely complete: time window, scope, and inclusion rule are all covered. The lack of an output schema means exact ordering or return fields are unspecified, but the title and description make the list semantics clear enough.

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 has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. It instead describes the selection logic, which is all that is needed here.

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 identifies the resource: tokens with the most money and wallet inflow over the last ten minutes, across all curves and pools. The title reinforces the real-time intent, though the description lacks a direct verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not explicitly contrast with sibling discovery tools.

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 ten-minute window and chain-wide scope give clear context for when this tool is relevant. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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