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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, fixed picks per tier, the ~2-day measurement window behind 'pending', and the return payload composition. It stops short of stating pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the pending-status caveat is the kind of thing that prevents an agent from misreporting a result.

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?

Purpose and the get_signals routing are front-loaded in the first two paragraphs, which is the right ordering. The trailing parameter recap largely duplicates the schema and could be cut, but overall the text is tight and each paragraph has a distinct job.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields and performance metrics, and it covers scoping (tier, chain, time window) and paging (cursor) sufficiently to call the tool correctly. Nothing an agent needs is missing for a read-only, open-world listing tool.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description restates the same enums, defaults, and ISO 8601/Unix time formats without adding syntax or edge-case guidance (e.g. behavior when since > until), so it clears the baseline but adds little.

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 verb+resource ('curated CabalSpy calls ... newest first') and enumerates what each call contains (token, market cap at call, KOL/Smart Money wallets, trading links, 24h performance). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_signals, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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 concrete use cases ('what did CabalSpy call', 'how did the call on this token do') and an explicit alternative with its selection condition: 'for wallet clusters with your own thresholds use get_signals instead.' It even pre-empts a likely misread by explaining that performance.status 'pending' is not a bad result.

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