pulse_cohort_recent_top_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns lifecycles with specific fields and uses a last-30-day tier definition. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default sorting, rate limits, or authentication requirements, though these are less critical for a read-only data retrieval 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 a single sentence that conveys all essential information without fluff. Every part adds value: what it returns, the cohort definition, and the included fields. No unnecessary words.

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, the description lists key return fields (entry/exit VWAP, hold duration, realized PnL, fees, liquidation flag). It does not explain that the tool returns multiple positions or mention pagination details, but the schema parameters (limit, offset) cover that. The description is relatively complete for a list endpoint.

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 context by linking the tier parameters to the cohort definition, but it does not elaborate on enum values or provide usage hints beyond what the schema already describes. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose 'pnl' vs 'size' for tierType in practice.

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 a last-30-day tier, listing specific fields like entry/exit VWAP, hold duration, realized PnL, fees, and liquidation flag. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'biggest/most notable open->close cycles from currently-printing wallets'.

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 usage when querying top positions from a specific tier cohort but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools (e.g., pulse_cohort_recent_positions, pulse_cohort_recent_trades). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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