Inspect one prediction-market whale wallet

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral caveats: CoinRithm flow fields are matched-trade observations, provider-reported context may have separate availability/as-of markers, and absence of a row is not proof of inactivity. It also states no API key is required.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, return contents, data-provenance caveats, and auth requirement are each covered in a few efficient sentences. No sentence is redundant.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with a full output schema, this description covers the essential input semantics, data interpretation, caveats, and authentication. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results appropriately.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the enum for source and the wallet pattern. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource: wallet movement detail for one supported on-chain prediction-market venue and address. It also lists concrete return contents, distinguishing it from list-level siblings like pm_data_whales and pm_data_whale_wallets.

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 singular scope ('one supported... venue and address') implies this is the tool for single-wallet detail, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage context is present by implication, not by direct guidance.

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