botindex_hl_whale_alerts

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 key behavioral traits: it's a summary tool (implying read-only, non-destructive), tracks specific data ('$187M+ in whale positions'), and has usage limits ('FREE (3/day)'). However, it lacks details on response format, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with every sentence adding value: the first defines the purpose, the second adds context ('Tracks $187M+'), and the third specifies constraints ('FREE (3/day)'). There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, scope, and constraints, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or deeper behavioral context. For a simple summary tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps, especially without structured data to rely on.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter info, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates by not misleading about parameters, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required'.

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's purpose: 'Hyperliquid whale alert summary — top whale positions and recent large trade count.' It specifies the verb ('summary') and resource ('whale positions and recent large trade count'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'botindex_hl_whale_alerts_full', though the mention of 'summary' vs. 'full' implies a distinction.

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 context by mentioning 'FREE (3/day)', which suggests rate limits and when to use it cautiously. It also hints at an alternative with 'summary' vs. the sibling 'full' version, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose one over the other. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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