whale_score_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the transparency burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the ≥5 resolved-signals eligibility rule, the 'honest, never fabricated' stance, the 5-minute DB cache, the whale_score_daily backing table, and 365-day retention with permanent monthly archive. It also clarifies row granularity and output fields, leaving little ambiguity about behavior.

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 compact and information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded. It contains one redundant clause ('Daily historical composite scores for tracked whale wallets' restates the opener) but otherwise every sentence contributes a detail (eligibility, cache, retention, fields).

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 tool must describe return values, and it does: one row per wallet per day with address, chain, label, score, win rate, average return %, and sample count. It also covers data recency, caching, retention, and the minimum-signals rule, making it fully self-contained for an agent to invoke.

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 per the rubric. The description's parameter-related additions (e.g., 'Filter by ?chain=') largely echo the schema, and it adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents. Overall it neither needs nor adds much parameter semantics.

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+resource ('Get daily whale score history'), names the exact ranking basis (composite score from win rate + avg return), and states the 90-day window. It also enumerates the output fields, making the tool's identity unmistakable among whale/history siblings.

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?

Says the tool is 'Useful for tracking smart-money wallet performance trends,' giving a clear intended use case, and explains the optional chain filter. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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