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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns ('whale-sized swaps') but does not mention any limits, pagination, or whether it is read-only. Since the tool likely only reads data, but this is not explicitly stated, the description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 one concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a hint about the 'limit' parameter or the output format, but for what it does, it is appropriately concise.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter but no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format, any thresholds for 'whale-sized', or whether the results are sorted by time. The agent may call it correctly but might be unsure about the interpretation of 'whale-sized' or the nature of the data returned.

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 schema has a single 'limit' parameter, and its description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter is not explained in the schema. The description does not mention 'limit' at all. However, the parameter is self-explanatory (an integer limit for number of results), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema provides enough information for an agent to understand it, despite the lack of description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recent') and a clear resource ('whale-sized swaps across all X1 tokens'), which distinguishes it from generic trade tools like 'recent_trades'. However, it does not explicitly mention that it aggregates across all tokens, which might be inferred but is not stated as a differentiator from a token-specific tool.

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 a clear context (recent whale swaps) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recent_trades' or 'firehose'. It does not state any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer when this specific tool is more appropriate.

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