whale_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses paid access ($0.004/call), the accepted payment rails (USDC on Arc/Base/Solana or XNT on X1), no key/sign-up requirement, and critically that over MCP the response is the price and URL, not the 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the data scope, then the sibling routing, then the payment/MCP caveat. No filler, and the most surprising constraint (paid + MCP returns no data) is stated plainly.

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 or annotations exist, and the description compensates by stating ordering, result cap, and the paid/MCP return behavior. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it and what to expect back in either transport.

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 0% for the single `limit` parameter. The description only partially compensates by restating the cap ("up to 50"); it does not clarify the default of 20 or how limit interacts with the newest-first ordering.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: "Whale-sized swaps across ALL X1 tokens, newest first (up to 50)." It explicitly contrasts with the sibling recent_trades ("For every trade of one token use recent_trades"), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it (single-token trade history → recent_trades), and flags that over MCP this tool returns pricing/URL rather than data, which is an effective when-not-to-use signal.

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