analysis.flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It outlines the basic scanning behavior and identifies that it is a Pro feature, but does not disclose additional traits such as whether it is read-only, performance considerations, or any potential restrictions beyond the Pro label.

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?

Two sentences only: the first front-loads the main action, the second adds detail. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

Description explains what the tool does and the type of signal identified, but lacks details on output format, result interpretation, or usage constraints. Given no output schema, more context on return values would be beneficial.

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%, providing baseline adequacy. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions; parameters like top_traders and max_age_minutes are already well described in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans top leaderboard traders for smart money convergence signals, identifying markets with multiple top traders buying the same outcome. It distinctly describes the specific functionality and mentions it is a Pro feature, differentiating it from sibling tools like analysis.arbitrage or analysis.compare.

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 implies usage when seeking smart money convergence signals but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like traders.analyze or analysis.opportunity. No when-not or alternative tool mentions are included.

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