Whale flow by hour

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is 'descriptive market data only,' limited to one coin, and covers a rolling window. This provides depth beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 first sentence is concise and information-dense, effectively describing the tool. However, the second sentence is promotional (pointing to a developer plan) and does not aid tool invocation, adding unnecessary noise. It could be restructured to remove the marketing content.

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 output schema and minimal schema descriptions, the description provides the core concept but omits critical operational details: how to format the coin parameter, what exactly 'hours' controls, and what happens if omitted (since only coin is required). An agent would likely need to guess or infer parameter semantics.

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 0% — no parameter descriptions exist. The description hints at 'coin' (one coin) and 'rolling window' (likely tied to 'hours'), but does not explicitly explain the format, units, or default behavior of the 'hours' parameter. This is ambiguous for an agent constructing a call.

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's function: 'Hourly buy and sell USD flow buckets for one coin, CEX and DEX split, over a rolling window.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like whale_trades or whale_radar by emphasizing the aggregated, time-bucketed nature.

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 context: it is for one coin's daily flow overview and is 'descriptive market data only.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like whale_trades or whale_tape, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative naming.

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