madeonsol_kol_hot_tokens

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the concept of 'accelerating interest', which is more about purpose than specific behaviors like rate limits or pagination.

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 concise, with two short, meaningful sentences. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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?

While the description provides a high-level concept and parameter hints, it lacks details about return values, ordering, or pagination. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete, but it is adequate for a simple listing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'PRO+ adds buyer-quality filters', which maps to two parameters (min_avg_winrate and unique_strategies), adding slight context but not significantly enhancing the schema's own descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as returning tokens with accelerating KOL buy interest, positioning it as an early signal tool distinct from other KOL tools like trending tokens or leaderboard. It uses specific language ('momentum tokens') and implies a unique value proposition.

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 implies usage for early detection before coordination triggers, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools or when to avoid it. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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