pulse_cohort_summary

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 discloses that response payloads use legacy slugs (money_printer, leviathan, etc.), which is a behavioral insight. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Given the simple boolean parameter, the description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 about four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key details. It lists tiers and metrics efficiently, though the parentheses with slashes and underscores are slightly messy. Overall, it is reasonably concise with no redundant text.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (multiple tiers and metrics), the description covers the main return structure and mentions legacy slugs. However, it omits ordering, pagination, error conditions, and any limits on data returned. For a data query tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% with one boolean parameter 'useToonFormat' already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter format, behavior, or trade-offs. It mentions legacy slugs but that relates to the response, not the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameter adequately.

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 function as retrieving behavioral cohort analysis across all tracked wallets on Hyperliquid. It lists the tier categories and metrics returned, distinguishing it from sibling pulse_global_stats by noting that tool should be called first for total wallet count. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other cohort tools like pulse_cohort_positions or pulse_cohort_trades.

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 one usage guideline: 'For the current tracked-wallet total, call pulse_global_stats first.' This implies a prerequisite but does not specify when to use this tool versus other cohort or pulse tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative scenarios. The guidance is minimal.

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