Whale flow vs own history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals key behavioral details: it is descriptive market data only, keyless access returns multiples and records but USD magnitudes require a developer plan, and the return shape changes between a flat object and {coins:[...]} depending on input. This gives the agent important context about data fidelity and response structure.

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 informative but somewhat dense, packing multiple clauses including a marketing URL. However, each sentence contributes value: the core functionality, input flexibility, output structure, plan limitations, and a link for more depth. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details, which is an effective structure.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what metrics it returns, how input affects output shape, and access limitations. It could be more explicit about coin identifier formats or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 only has an optional 'coin' string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that it accepts a comma-separated list for portfolio briefs and that the return format depends on whether a single coin or list is provided. It does not specify the expected identifier format (e.g., symbol vs. name), but it adds meaningful usage semantics otherwise.

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 compares per-coin whale flow against the coin's own historical average, with specific metrics (multiple of daily average, N-day-high flags, buy share vs 7d). It explicitly calls itself 'The "is this unusual for THIS coin" call,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like whale_flow and whale_radar.

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?

It indicates when to use this tool: when you need to evaluate whether current whale flow is unusual for a specific coin. It also mentions portfolio briefs for comma-separated lists, giving a use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the contrast with other whale tools is implied.

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