get_coordinated_buys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('$0.04'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's minimal for a tool that likely returns complex data.

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 concise with two sentences: one states the purpose, and the other adds cost information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence about cost could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add brief usage context without losing efficiency.

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 the complexity of detecting coordinated buying (likely involving multiple data points and analysis), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of tokens, confidence scores), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., only covers tracked KOLs). The cost mention is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'hours' means in the context of coordinated buying or suggest typical values). It mentions 'short window' but doesn't link this to the 'hours' parameter explicitly.

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's purpose: 'Detect coordinated buying across tracked KOLs. Identifies tokens where multiple influencers bought within a short window.' It specifies the verb ('detect'), resource ('coordinated buying'), and scope ('tracked KOLs'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_kol_shills' or 'get_token_intelligence' that might involve KOL or token 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost ('$0.04'), which implies a paid service, but doesn't specify prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'check_token_risk' and 'get_kol_shills', there's no indication of how this tool fits into the broader workflow.

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