fahali_get_smart_money_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It proactively discloses that Fahali ingests no on-chain/venue order-flow feed, clarifies that field names like 'symbolsWithRecentDetections' and 'alertLean' are literal and refer to alert-based data, not institutional activity. It also states 'Public data — no tier required,' which is transparent about access requirements.

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 somewhat long but each sentence adds unique value: core purpose, negative clarification, list of outputs, field name explanation, and access note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise by removing the repetitive negation, but overall well-structured.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior and return structure. It does so comprehensively, detailing all output fields and their meanings, correcting potential misinterpretations, and providing context about data source and accessibility. This leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the output and caveats. It adds value beyond the schema by clarifying what is returned.

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 returns 'Recent DETECTION-ALERT activity' and explicitly distinguishes it from institutional or on-chain smart money flow. It lists specific outputs: symbols with recent alerts, detection count, bullish/bearish lean, most-alerted symbol, and sentiment. This specificity sets it apart from siblings like fahali_get_institutional_risk_score.

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 tells users what the tool is NOT (institutional/on-chain), advises to read dataOrigin and disclaimer, and notes public access. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like fahali_get_whale_activity or fahali_get_dark_pool_activity, which might be relevant for institutional flow. The guidance on misconceptions is strong but could be more directive.

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