Get HoodGrow recent large trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the data is 'Indexed from Uniswap V3 Swap events on-chain' and that 'side and USD size are derived from the USDG leg of each swap,' which clarifies how the data is constructed. This goes beyond annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 compact—three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then cover parameters, pricing, and data provenance. It's efficient, though including pricing could be considered slightly tangential; overall it's well-structured and not bloated.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains return content (side, USD size, transaction hash) and sorting (newest first). It also covers parameter usage and data source. It doesn't detail exact response format or error behavior, but that's acceptable for a simple read tool with strong annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already states. It does reinforce the default 20 and the 'global feed' concept, but that's duplicative. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Recent large (whale) trades in Robinhood Chain stock-token Uniswap V3 pools, newest first — each with a buy/sell side, USD size, and transaction hash.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_markets or get_ohlc by focusing on trade events. The 'global feed' and parameter mentions further refine its purpose.

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 clear usage context: 'Omit symbol for the global feed' and 'limit caps the list (1-100, default 20)' offer practical guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to select it correctly when needing recent whale trades.

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