pulse_cohort_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is real-time but does not cover rate limits, authentication needs, error scenarios, or output format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 with two sentences. The first states the core action, and the second provides concrete examples and context. No redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description implies the return is live positions. It mentions the example tier values and covers the key parameters. Minor omission: it does not explain that useToonFormat controls output format, but the schema handles that.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'tier traders' and 'size wallets' map to tier and tierType), but the schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'See' and clearly identifies the resource: live positions of a trader cohort. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pulse_cohort_history by emphasizing 'RIGHT NOW' and 'real-time whale intelligence'.

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 provides clear examples of when to use the tool (e.g., for 'money_printer' or 'leviathan' tiers), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools partially fills this gap.

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