Smart Money Radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies time windows (1h, 4h, 24h) and clarifies that the data is 'descriptive market data only', reinforcing the read-only nature. No contradiction is present.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The second sentence includes a promotional link with UTM parameters, which is somewhat extraneous for an agent invocation but does not significantly bloat the text. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 zero parameters, the description is the sole source of information. It conveys the core functionality and time windows, but it does not clarify the output format, define 'unusual', or differentiate from sibling tools such as whale_flow or whale_trades. This leaves notable gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to provide additional parameter meaning, and the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 identifies the tool as a radar for coins with unusual whale flow across specific time windows, distinguishing it from siblings like whale_trades and whale_flow. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the interrogative 'which coins' instead of a direct verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Descriptive market data only' is a limitation, not a usage directive, and there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name and title.

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