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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld; the description adds materially more: volatility and short-lived-token risk, best-first ranking with page 1 as top, a results cap with context-cost rationale, and precise semantics for the whale block (buyers-plus-sellers vs buyers-only) and safety_tier colors (grey is not a red flag; Moby refuses agent buys on red). This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 critical differentiator and the risk warning are front-loaded, and each paragraph covers a distinct concern (identity, routing map, pagination discipline, whale block, asset class, safety tier). It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence earns its place; the Solana group-id addendum is the only slightly expendable part.

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?

Covers everything needed to call this correctly despite an output schema already existing: risk framing, ordering, pagination limits, optional whale block semantics, asset_class handling, safety_tier interpretation, and an explicit note that this is market-wide data not user wallet data (distinguishing it from the get_my_* siblings).

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 75% and the schema already documents page/limit, but the description supplies the meaning the schema omits: guidance to keep limit small, the cost tradeoff of paging, and — critically — what `whale_windows` produces per row (whale_count, buyers vs sellers, net flow, and the correspondence with `whale_count_h24`), which the schema never explains.

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 the exact resource ('the high-risk degen leaderboard') and immediately contrasts it with `get_screener_leaderboard` as newer, smaller, more volatile tokens. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling leaderboard tool without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an explicit routing map across all five leaderboards (Main/Degen/Majors/Stocks/Pulse) with the exact group ids, plus concrete when-to-use rules ('raise limit or step page only if the answer is genuinely not in the first page'). Also warns never to resolve majors/stocks by ticker search, which prevents a common misuse.

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