madeonsol_token_flow

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the return metrics' interpretations (e.g., trades_per_wallet as wash-trading proxy, net_sol formula) and access limitations.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, return fields, and access restrictions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be more structured with bullet points for readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description thoroughly explains all returned metrics and their significance (e.g., net_sol formula, wash-trading proxy). It also details access tier restrictions, making it sufficiently complete for agent usage.

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 schema already describes both parameters (mint, window). The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it is a 'Trade-flow aggregate for a token' providing an organic-vs-fake volume read, with specific metrics listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on token trade flow analysis.

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 mentions access tier restriction ('PRO/ULTRA only — BASIC receives HTTP 403') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools cover diverse functions, but no comparative guidance is given.

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