pulse_active_traders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the data is 'Cached up to 120s' and 'exchange-wide' (no user/workspace filtering). However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the output is paginated. The caching info is useful but minimal for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core data, the second provides the nickname and caching behavior. Front-loaded, clear, and efficient.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the data nature (wallets, match count), time window (last 24h), scope (exchange-wide), and caching. Minor missing details: what 'wallets' means (addresses? usernames?) and whether there is a limit on returned wallets. But overall adequate for a simple metric 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'useToonFormat' is fully described in the input schema). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high and description adds no semantic value.

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 the tool returns distinct wallets that filled perp trades in the last 24h plus total match count, with the nickname 'daily active traders'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pulse_global_stats' (aggregate stats) and 'pulse_trader_profile' (individual focus) by specifying exchange-wide scope and a specific metric.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when it is appropriate, when it is not, or suggesting sibling tools for different use cases (e.g., filtering by trader or using other pulse tools).

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