get_kronos_whale_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.02 USDC) and the read-only nature implied by 'Get'. However, it doesn't mention return format, pagination, or any rate limits. The cost disclosure adds value beyond the schema, but other behavioral details are absent.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and cost. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, supported chains, and cost. It lacks details about the nature of the returned data or how the 'hours' parameter affects results, but the schema provides defaults and bounds. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally complete but could be enhanced with output expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists the chains, covering the 'chain' parameter. However, the 'hours' parameter is entirely absent from the description, leaving its meaning and range to be inferred from the schema. The description adds some value for chain but fails to clarify the time window parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving whale, exchange, bridge, and stablecoin-flow context for specific chains. The verb 'Get' with the resource types and chain list is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like signals, risk, or history.

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 provides clear context on what data to expect (whale/exchange/bridge/stablecoin flows) and which chains are supported (Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the distinct focus on flow context implies when it's appropriate relative to siblings.

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