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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful behavioral color — that results are curated/pre-filtered and inherently small, and that the data is public market scope rather than the caller's own wallet. It stops short of describing pagination or freshness/latency, but with an output schema present that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the identity of the feed, then routing, then the market-vs-user clarification — a sensible priority order. Slightly long for its content, with the final `get_my_` sentence being defensive rather than essential, but every sentence still carries usable signal.

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 two-parameter, no-required-arg read tool with both annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns conceptually, when to pick it, what to pick instead, and the market-vs-personal data boundary. Nothing material is missing.

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 50%: `limit` is documented in-schema, and `network` is effectively pinned by a `const: solana` with a default, so the undocumented half carries little risk. The description hints that row counts are capped ('more than a handful of rows' → use the other tool), but never states the actual ceiling or what `limit` means against it, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 a specific resource (the curated WhaleWatch home feed of notable whale trades across the whole market) and its scope (short, already filtered). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, `get_whalewatch_feed`, and from the `get_my_` family, so an agent can place it 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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger (open-ended 'what are whales doing right now') and an explicit exclusion list (one token, one wallet, specific lists, a time window, more than a handful of rows) routed to the named alternative `get_whalewatch_feed`. It also pre-empts a likely mis-selection by stating this is market-wide, not user-portfolio data.

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