botindex_polymarket_whale_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('$0.02'), which is useful context, but doesn't describe other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what happens when invoked (e.g., real-time vs. historical data). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (what it does and cost). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly stating it's a retrieval tool). Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and cost information. However, it lacks details on output format, data scope (e.g., time range, limits), and behavioral context, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. It's minimally 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none, so it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description provides context about the output data.

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 retrieves 'Polymarket whale trades over $10K notional' with specific data fields (side, outcome, wallet proxy info), providing a specific verb (implicitly 'retrieve' or 'get') and resource. It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on Polymarket whale trades, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Polymarket-related tools like 'botindex_polymarket_fomc' or 'botindex_polymarket_micro_markets'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or compare it to similar tools (e.g., other whale alert tools like 'botindex_hl_whale_alerts'). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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