Detect wash trading

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: data sources, pool discovery, detection heuristics, and the exact categories of returned results.

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 dense but front-loaded and purposeful, with the action first and the heuristic list afterward. It could be split for readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 complex, multi-parameter detection tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining methodology and return shape. Remaining gaps are minor: time-window semantics, pool-count behavior, and any operational limits are not spelled out.

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 60%, so several parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds useful meaning around automatic pool discovery and recent-trade scope, but it does not explain maxPools, sinceUnix semantics, or how the trade window is bounded.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read a token's recent trades and score them for wash trading. It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic token analysis by naming the exact detection heuristics and output.

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 intended use is strongly implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as analyze_token, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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