Newcomer Whales

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the first-ever lifecycle criterion, the returned metrics, and troubleshooting guidance on minNotional. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, returned fields, and usage/fallback guidance. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only, fully schema-documented query with no output schema, the description covers intent, selection criteria, return fields, and a practical empty-result remedy. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 every parameter already has clear meaning, defaults, and ranges. The description adds only a generic usage tip about minNotional, which is helpful but not necessary for understanding the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific action ('Find'), a precise target ('wallets whose first-ever lifecycle is recent but who have already moved large notional'), and the returned fields. The newcomer-vs-established framing differentiates it clearly from siblings like pulse_persistent_winners and pulse_capital_titans.

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?

Gives an explicit motivating question ('who just showed up and is already trading big?') and even a fallback instruction to lower minNotional if no rows return. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling alternatives to prefer, so it stops short of a 5.

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