pulse_capital_titans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, destructive potential, rate limits, or data freshness. The name 'pulse_capital_titans' hints at a query but lacks explicit behavioral context.

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 extremely concise—three sentences that front-load the purpose, followed by usage and a note on parameters. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, return fields, and filtering. It lacks details on pagination handling and output formatting options beyond the toon format, but overall it's sufficient for an agent.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds the context that minPnl/minFees act as noise filters, but overall it adds minimal value beyond the schema definitions.

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's purpose: finding fee-efficient traders based on realized PnL per dollar of fees. It specifies returned fields and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on different metrics like volume or top traders.

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 explicitly states the use case ('who extracts the most edge per dollar spent on fees?') and explains that minPnl/minFees gates filter out noise. While it doesn't provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare to alternatives, the given directive is clear.

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