xrpl_pulse_entity_positioning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context. It explains the semantics of net_usd and net_direction, including the role-aware definition of accumulation. However, it omits details like data latency, output structure, or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.

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 two sentences and every clause contributes. The first sentence delivers purpose and scope; the second clarifies key definitions. 'Free' is slightly extra but not distracting, and the overall structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description explains the purpose and two key output fields but leaves gaps: it does not describe the overall response structure (e.g., rows per entity per day), how entities are selected, or any time-related nuances. The single parameter is simple, but the output behavior is under-covered.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'days' with a clear default and maximum. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('scoring') and a clear resource ('per-entity accumulation vs distribution') with entity types explicitly listed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like exchange_flow_delta or whale_flow_24h by focusing on entity-level positioning from labeled whale events.

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 entity-level accumulation/distribution analysis, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as xrpl_pulse_exchange_flow_delta, making the usage context only implicit.

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