Whale tape: $1M+ aggressive prints with 24h buy share

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the data is 'recorded live from our own sockets' and includes '24h aggregates,' but it does not explain update cadence, staleness, or edge cases. This is solid but not exceptional.

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 with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, followed immediately by the return-value summary. Every word contributes.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, this description covers what an agent needs: when to call, what it returns, and the key data source context. Nothing important is missing for successful invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the invocation surface. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 specific language: 'Call this when the user asks about whale trades, large market orders, or whether big players are buying or selling right now' and defines the resource precisely as '$1M+ aggressive prints' with '24h aggregates with the buy share.' This makes the tool's function unmistakable and clearly distinct from the broad sibling list.

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 explicitly opens with 'Call this when the user asks about...' and lists three clear user-intent patterns that should trigger this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it misses the full 5, but the contextual guidance is strong and actionable.

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