Whale trades feed

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing row cap, ordering, free vs. paid plan limits (BTC/USD only, 15-min delays, $250K+ DEX swaps), and that it is descriptive only. This provides operational details the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) do not cover, and is consistent with them.

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 has a clear first sentence but then becomes redundant, repeating paid-plan details ('a paid developer plan lifts...' and 'More depth on a developer plan') and includes a promotional URL with tracking parameters. This takes space away from more essential parameter clarification without adding new value.

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?

Providing good context on data shape, delays, tier limitations, and row cap is helpful, but the lack of return-value details (no output schema) and missing parameter mappings leaves the agent with uncertainty about how to invoke the tool for specific filtering (coin, min_usd, source). The description is adequate the high-level purpose but incomplete for precise usage.

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%, and the description does not name or explain any of the parameters (coin, limit, source, min_usd). While it hints at limit ('capped at 50 rows'), source ('CEX/DEX'), and min_usd ($1M+, $250K+), these are indirect and coin is entirely unaddressed. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Live whale trades merged across 15 CEX venues plus on-chain DEX swaps,' with clear scope (venues, blockchains) and output constraints ('newest first, capped at 50 rows'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whale_tape or whale_radar by highlighting the aggregated multi-venue, multi-chain 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 (a quick merged feed of whale trades) and notes limitations ('capped at 50 rows', 'full depth on the REST API'), but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools or states when to choose this over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so guidance is only implicit.

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