get_v1_btc_derivatives_whale_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key limitation (output_btc includes change-outputs) but lacks details on whether the feed is real-time, historical, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a notable warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the nature of the feed and a critical caveat, but it omits details about the return format, update frequency, or how to interpret the enrichments. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema provides no information. The description does not need to add param details, and the baseline is 4. No contradictions.

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 it is a 'Bitcoin whale transaction feed' with a default threshold of >10 BTC, listing enrichments (fee-rate, RBF flag, ancestor-count) and a warning about output_btc including change-outputs. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like coin_days_destroyed or mempool_pressure.

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 implies usage for monitoring large Bitcoin transactions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for net transfers or other feed types). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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