pulse_cohort_recent_trades

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 reveals that trades are filtered by LAST-30-DAY tier and focuses on currently-printing wallets, adding behavioral context about recency and weighting. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with essential information. No redundant words; every part earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (cohort filtering, tiers), the description provides sufficient overview. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, but the high schema coverage compensates somewhat. Adequate for the complexity.

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 conceptual framing (cohort defined by LAST-30-DAY tier) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Recent trades by a cohort defined by its LAST-30-DAY tier'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'real-time alpha weighted to who is hot NOW, not all-time', making its specific role clear among many pulse_* tools.

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 implicitly guides usage by contrasting with 'not all-time', suggesting this tool is for recent, hot cohort trades. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling list includes pulse_cohort_trades and others.

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