token_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ($0.006 USDC per call), p99 latency (8000ms), and that it flags one-sided selling and single-wallet dumping. It omits auth requirements but otherwise gives rich operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the returned metrics, and the operational facts (cost, latency) are placed at the end. It is dense but readable; the chain list and window duplicate the schema slightly, which is the only waste.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields (buy/sell count and USD volume, net flow, ratio, top buyer/seller wallets, largest trades) plus cost and latency. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents token, chain, and hours. The description restates the chain list and the 1-24 hour window ('shortened on very fast chains') but adds no new syntax or format detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('who bought and who sold a token'), names the data computed (buy/sell counts, volume, net flow, ratio, top wallets, largest trades), and the source (swap events of biggest DEX pools). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like token_smart_money or erc20_transfers without opening the schema.

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?

'For trading agents before or after a buy' gives clear usage context, and the 1-24 hour window bounds invocation. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives (e.g. token_smart_money, token_liquidity) or say when this view is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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