Whale activity

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a 15-minute cache lag, the empty-state behavior with largestHumanPct, and the summary outputs including dangerous/active whale counts and a risk verdict. This adds substantial behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: definition, row contents, cache behavior, empty state, usage guidance, exclusions, and arguments/cost. The description is dense but well-organized and front-loads the core definition before routing and parameters.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, how results are scoped, caching constraints, empty-state behavior, when to use it, when not to use it, and parameter notes. Combined with the output schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents address format, chain enum, and validation behavior in detail. The description only mentions 'address and chain' and adds the API-unit cost note, which is useful but not a meaningful semantic expansion over the schema.

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 states a specific, well-defined resource: wallets holding at least 1% of supply after removing pools, lockers, treasuries, and custodial accounts. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_holders, get_smart_money, and get_dev_tracker by stating what it is not for.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after get_holders when the question is about who can dump and whether they are already dumping. It also names the alternatives it is not for, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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