botindex_hl_whale_alerts_full

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 mentions pricing ($0.05), which hints at a cost or rate limit, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness, update frequency, authentication needs, or potential destructive actions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose, lacking details on how the tool behaves in operation.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, data elements, and pricing without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality ('Full Hyperliquid whale positions + recent large trades') and adds essential details concisely, making every part of the sentence earn 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 the tool's complexity (providing detailed financial data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers what data is returned but does not explain the return format, structure, or any limitations. For a data-rich tool with no structured output information, the description should do more to clarify what users can expect beyond the listed data points.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 specific verb ('Full Hyperliquid whale positions + recent large trades') and resource ('whale positions + recent large trades'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'botindex_hl_whale_alerts' which likely provides alerts rather than full data. It includes detailed data elements (entry prices, leverage, PnL, liquidation levels) and pricing information ($0.05), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 for accessing comprehensive whale data on Hyperliquid, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'botindex_hl_whale_alerts' or other crypto-related tools. The context is clear (whale positions and large trades), but no exclusions or specific alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicitly guided.

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