whale_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses no per-transaction detail, no wallet addresses/explorer links, no USD volume, cache staleness (~5 min), no per-request cost, the underlying data source, and the supported direction categories. This is far richer behavioral context than annotations alone would provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and limitation, followed by useful caveats. There is minor redundancy — 'movement COUNTS' appears twice and the 1–30 day range is mentioned both in the opening and in the parameter note — but no filler or irrelevant content.

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?

For a one-parameter aggregate tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers input, output grouping, data source, exclusions, caching behavior, and cost. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect in the response.

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 already covers window with default, min, max, and clamping, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the serialized usage hint (?window=N), ties the look-back to day-bucketed counts, and reiterates the default. This clarifies how the parameter drives output granularity, though it partially repeats schema content.

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 names a specific resource ('whale activity') and verb ('Get'), and specifies aggregation dimensions (chain, direction, day). It explicitly states this returns movement COUNTS rather than individual transfers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like whale_movements.

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?

It explicitly warns 'not individual transfers' and directs the agent to whale_movements for individual records with amounts, and it documents the window parameter with its default and range. It does not lay out a full decision tree against other aggregate siblings such as whale_daily_summary or whale_movements_summary, but the primary alternative is clearly covered.

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