whale_movements_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it covers auth (no authentication required), rate limits (60 requests/min), data semantics (USD totals only include rows with resolvable price, `unresolvedUsdCount` prevents silent inflation), and response contents. This is unusually transparent for a tool definition.

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 longer than average but densely informative, with front-loaded purpose and clear labels for period filter and response shape. Every section earns its place given there is no output schema. Slight redundancy such as 'MCP-compatible' keeps it from a perfect 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the full response fields, documents the only parameter, covers authentication and rate limits, and explains the data quality caveat. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining why the default is 7d and comparing it to the raw archive's 90d, which helps an agent reason about the period choice. It does not add much more, but the extra default rationale justifies a 4.

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 an aggregated statistics rollup of whale on-chain movements over a period. It clearly distinguishes itself from the raw sibling `whale_movements` by stating agents can use it instead of paging through raw rows to compute totals.

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 frames when to use the tool: when an agent wants aggregate totals rather than paging through raw `/api/public/whale-movements` rows. It also explains the period default choice relative to the raw archive. It stops short of explicitly naming a when-not-to-use condition or direct sibling alternative, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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