m2m_get_whale_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 'up to 50' result cap, 'recent' and 'tracked' scoping, and explicit exclusions (does not inspect bytecode or query DEX pricing). It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, result limit, and key fields; the second adds behavioral limitations. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the domain (Base, ERC-20), the result cap, the included data fields, and what it does not do. Minor gaps include unclear terms like 'tracked' and 'valuation provenance,' and no mention of formatting or error behavior, but these are not blocking for a correct call.

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 and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics (there are none), but it does clarify that the tool operates 'without query parameter limits,' which is relevant to how an agent should think about invocation. Nothing is missing here.

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 verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('tracked recent high-value ERC-20 transfer signals on Base'), and enumerates the returned data fields (transaction hashes, addresses, amounts, valuation provenance). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like m2m_get_token_price or m2m_audit_contract by focusing on transfer signals rather than pricing or bytecode inspection.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate (tracking large ERC-20 transfers on Base) and provides negative guidance ('does not inspect contract bytecode or query DEX pricing'), which implicitly routes agents away from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name specific alternative tools or state 'use this when...', leaving some inference to the agent.

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