Explore prediction-market whale wallets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the caveat that absent wallets do not prove absent trading (anonymized venues/unavailable feeds excluded) and a disclaimer that data is market context, not identity guarantee or recommendation. This directly addresses potential misinterpretations.

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: a single sentence covering the core aggregator, a second sentence listing outputs, and a final caveat sentence. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (time window and scope) and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 aggregation tool with an output schema (not shown) and well-described parameters, the description covers the essentials: what data is returned, venue exclusions, and the non-guarantee nature. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not significant gaps given the openWorldHint and simple parameter set.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema (limit, source, window). The description adds minimal additional semantics – it reiterates the window default (7d/30d) but does not explain how source filters interact with the venue exposure note. Since the schema carries the load, a 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 states a specific verb ('aggregation of identifiable large-trader wallet activity'), defines the resource (wallet activity for on-chain venues), and lists the exact outputs (trade count, notional, venue attribution, times). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like pm_data_whales or pm_data_whale_wallet by its plural, aggregated scope.

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 (e.g., free, public, no API key required) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like pm_data_whales or pm_data_whale_wallet. It gives no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for broad wallet aggregation rather than a single wallet or market-level data.

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