get_whale_signals

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. 'Alias for m2m_get_whale_signals' reveals no side effects, safety profile, return behavior, or operational characteristics, making it completely opaque behaviorally.

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 extremely short and contains no redundant wording, which supports conciseness. However, it is under-specified to the point of sacrificing clarity, so the brevity is not fully appropriate.

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, no output schema, and no behavioral detail, an alias-only description is not complete for an agent trying to understand what the tool returns or how it behaves. It may be sufficient only if the canonical sibling is thoroughly documented elsewhere, but that cannot be assumed from the provided context.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are effectively moot. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 identifies the tool as an alias for m2m_get_whale_signals, which distinguishes it from other siblings by pointing to the canonical endpoint. However, it does not state what the tool actually does beyond the implicit name, leaving the meaning of 'whale signals' undefined.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this alias versus m2m_get_whale_signals or any other sibling. The equivalence is implied but never stated as a selection rule, and there is no mention of preferred usage or alternatives.

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