get_crypto_whale_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.02 USDC fee and the specific data types, which is useful context, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. This leaves notable gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose, scope, and cost with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema with comprehensive parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, supported chains, event types, and cost. However, it omits explicit usage guidance and detailed return format, which are not critical for basic invocation but would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (chain enum with default, hours with range and default), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-related value beyond restating the supported chains, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'whale-scale transfers, exchange flows, bridge flows, and stablecoin events' for Ethereum, Base, or Arbitrum. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals and get_crypto_risk, which focus on different data types.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool—when needing whale-scale transfer, exchange flow, bridge, or stablecoin data on a specific chain. It mentions the $0.02 cost as a practical consideration, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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