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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing data provenance ('recorded live from our own sockets') and the exact inclusion threshold ($1M+ aggressive prints), which materially affects interpretation. It omits refresh cadence, lookback window for the tape itself, and any cap on number of prints returned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the return payload, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select or interpret the tool.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it names both components: the live print tape and the 24h buy-share aggregate. It leaves the per-print shape (side, venue, timestamp, notional) and result size unstated, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response structure.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It does implicitly communicate that there is no symbol or time filter to supply, which is useful for callers expecting one.

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 resource and threshold: recent $1M+ aggressive prints plus 24h aggregates with buy share. An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby sibling get_hl_whales (Hyperliquid whale positions), which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Opens with an explicit invocation trigger list: whale trades, large market orders, or whether big players are buying or selling right now. That is clear context for when to call. It offers no when-not guidance or named alternative for adjacent questions (e.g. per-address whale positions).

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