golden_alerts_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so impressively: it covers cache semantics, refresh timing, intentional omission of pro-only fields, severity thresholds, and the exact response shape. It also appears to begin an authentication note with 'No authentic...'. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 long but information-dense; each section adds real value: cache source, refresh cadence, field redaction, severity mapping, alert types, and response schema. It is slightly redundant with repeated 'latest' phrasing, and the final sentence is truncated at 'No authentic', preventing a perfect structure score.

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 fully documents the return contract: top-level keys, per-alert fields with types, null behavior for refreshedAt, and omitted pro-only fields. Combined with zero required parameters and clear cache behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and parse this endpoint 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than input, matching the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the latest snapshot of CryptoWhaleInsights Golden Alerts.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like golden_alerts_history and golden_alerts_monthly by emphasizing 'latest snapshot', the 5-minute refresh cadence, and the in-process cache read.

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: this is the cached, public snapshot endpoint refreshed by cron every 5 minutes, and it explicitly notes no new AI query is triggered per request. It does not explicitly say 'use golden_alerts_history for historical data' or list exclusions, so it stops just short of full sibling routing.

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