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, but the description adds substantial beyond-annotation behavior: data comes from Uniswap V3 Swap events, side and USD size are derived from the USDG leg, results are ordered newest first, and there is pricing in x402 or daily units. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core purpose, adds ordering and return fields, gives parameter usage, mentions cost, and closes with the data source. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the per-trade fields, ordering, limit behavior, global feed option, and provenance. For a simple 2-parameter list tool, this gives the agent enough context to invoke it and interpret results correctly.

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 documents limit and symbol fully, including defaults and semantics. The description essentially restates 'limit caps the list (1-100, default 20)' and 'omit symbol for the global feed' without adding meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource: recent large whale trades in Robinhood Chain stock-token Uniswap V3 pools, newest first. It differentiates itself by specifying the exchange/pool context and the included fields (buy/sell side, USD size, transaction hash), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_markets or get_ohlc.

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 usage context: omit symbol for the global feed, and limit caps the list. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe when not to use this tool, but the concrete behavior around symbol and limit provides adequate practical guidance.

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