track_whale_movements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the underlying data source (The Graph), which is modestly useful, but says nothing about whether results are real-time or historical, latency, rate limits, or cost of the query. For a monitoring-style tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no return-value or behavior description, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently. The description does not explain what a 'movement' record looks like or how the time window interacts with minAmount.

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 symbol, hours, and minAmount are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, unit, or filtering nuance beyond the 'whale' interpretation of minAmount, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Track large holder (whale) movements') and a data source ('via The Graph'), but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as detect_whale_trades, monitor_fan_token_transfers, or get_token_holders. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these overlapping tools it should pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks like trade detection or transfer monitoring. The only implicit cue is the 'minAmount' concept, which is left for the caller to infer.

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