pulse_cohort_recent_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full behavioral transparency. It explains that the tool uses last-30-day tier instead of lifetime tier and surfaces currently-printing wallets' positions. However, it does not disclose return format, data freshness, authentication needs, or any limitations beyond the contrast with the sibling tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and differentiation. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (4 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the core concept and differentiation, but could be slightly more complete by mentioning that it returns positions from recent-tier wallets without specifying the return structure. However, no output schema means less burden.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., tierType, tier, limit, useToonFormat). The conceptual explanation of last-30-day tier is helpful but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Live positions held by a cohort defined by its LAST-30-DAY tier', distinguishing it from the sibling pulse_cohort_positions which uses lifetime tier. The verb 'surfaces' and resource 'cohort defined by ... tier' are specific.

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 contrasts with pulse_cohort_positions, saying it 'catches regime changes the all-time pulse_cohort_positions misses', providing clear context for when to use this tool over that alternative. However, it does not list other alternatives or conditions when not to use.

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