whale_movements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses no-auth access, MCP compatibility, pagination, a 1-year cap, and the omission of the Pro-only explorerUrl field. It stops short of describing response fields or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 but redundant: 'paginated 1-year history' is repeated as 'paginated archive ... covering up to 1 year', auth status is stated twice, and the enum lists duplicate the schema. It also ends with a truncated example ('e.g. ?'), suggesting the text is cut off.

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?

The tool is adequately described for filtering and invoking, with supported chains, directions, and examples. It is less complete because there is no output schema and the description never explains the response shape, and the minUsd mention is unsupported by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters; the description adds helpful examples for q and enumerates chain and direction values. However, it also references a minUsd parameter that does not exist in the input schema, which is a reliability problem.

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 clearly states the tool returns a paginated archive of large whale on-chain movements from a history database, so the verb, resource, and timeframe are explicit. It identifies itself as the public counterpart of an authenticated endpoint, but it does not differentiate from MCP siblings like recent_whales or whale_movements_summary.

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 gives a clear use case — analysing historical on-chain flow direction without credentials — and contrasts the public endpoint with the authenticated /api/whale-history endpoint that includes explorerUrl. It does not, however, spell out when to choose this over sibling tools such as recent_whales or whale_movements_summary.

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