chainvectorWhalePressure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the calculation logic and output scale (0-100, direction), which is useful, but it does not disclose data source, return structure, or limitations. It adds interpretive value but leaves out practical behavioral details.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core definition and followed by an interpretive note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description gives a high-level summary ('pressure_score 0-100 with direction buying/selling') but leaves ambiguity about whether the 1m/5m/15m windows produce separate scores or an aggregate. It also omits details like timestamps or symbol echoed in the response. The context is adequate for a simple metric tool but incomplete for clear invocation.

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 100% with descriptions for both 'symbol' and 'min_notional'. The description reinforces 'min_notional' as a threshold ('>= min_notional USD') but adds no new meaning for 'symbol'. Since the schema already documents both parameters well, the description's contribution is marginal, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool computes 'ChainVector whale pressure' from 'large-trade (>= min_notional USD) taker aggression over 1m/5m/15m windows' and outputs a 'pressure_score 0-100 with direction buying/selling'. This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from other chainvector tools like chainvectorOrderflowCvd or chainvectorFundingWeighted.

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 line 'Whales leaning one way while price is flat often front-runs the move' hints at a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It provides context but no direct usage guidance.

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