pulse_cohort_recent_top_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns data from 'currently-printing wallets' and filters by 'last-30-day tier', and lists the output fields. This gives a clear indication of what the tool does and its read-only nature. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the output is sorted. The level of detail is good but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the key idea and avoids filler words. However, it is slightly dense and could benefit from breaking into shorter sentences for readability without losing meaning.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides a good overview of what the tool returns and the cohort-filtering logic. However, it does not mention pagination (limit and offset) or output format options (useToonFormat). These are covered in the schema but the description could hint at them for a complete mental model. The listing of output fields partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, but the schema itself already provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters, including enums and defaults. The description's focus is on output rather than input, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 'top closed position lifecycles' for a cohort defined by its 'LAST-30-DAY tier', and explicitly lists the metrics included (entry/exit VWAP, hold duration, realized PnL, fees, liquidation flag). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pulse_cohort_positions (which likely returns all positions) and pulse_lifecycles_recent (general lifecycles without cohort filter).

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 the tool is for retrieving top closed positions for a specific cohort based on tier and recency, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pulse_cohort_positions or pulse_lifecycles_recent. No exclusions, prerequisites, or caveats are mentioned.

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