Whale trades feed (alias)

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral details: deprecated status, 15 CEX venues plus DEX swaps on Ethereum/Base/Arbitrum, newest-first ordering, 50-row cap, keyless vs paid plan shape differences (including delays and thresholds), and 'Descriptive market data only.' This substantially enriches the agent's understanding.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation warning, which is excellent for quick scanning. However, it becomes a dense run-on paragraph and the promotional URL at the end is not essential for tool invocation, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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 the tool is a deprecated alias, the description covers the key contextual aspects: what data it returns, ordering, row cap, auth tiers, and alternative tools. It does not explain parameter semantics or return structures, but that is partially offset by the deprecation guidance and the annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (coin, limit, source, min_usd). It only indirectly references concepts like CEX/DEX and a 50-row cap, but does not state how these map to the schema fields, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 opens with 'Deprecated alias for whale_trades' which precisely identifies the tool's role as a backward-compatibility proxy. It then elaborates on the underlying data (live whale trades merged across venues) and distinguishes from the preferred sibling whale_trades by explicitly naming it.

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?

'Prefer whale_trades' is a direct, explicit alternative recommendation. It also explains that the alias exists 'so existing clients keep working,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. The note about 'full depth on the REST API' further steers agents toward the right endpoint for more complete data.

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