get_whales

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

The description fully discloses the payment mechanism ($0.05 via x402), refund policy, requirement for PRIVATE_KEY with USDC on Base, and behavior without a key (returns 402 price terms). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds critical information: pricing, data content, relationship to sibling tools, refund guarantee, and key requirement. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important detail (paid).

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 complexity of a paid API with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what data is returned, how to pay, what happens if payment is charged but not delivered, and prerequisites. It even lists the specific metrics included in the table.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the payment configuration (PRIVATE_KEY environment variable) which is not a schema parameter but is essential for invocation.

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: it returns a whale calibration table with per-wallet hold-to-resolution win rates, mirror/fade ROI, and follow/fade labels. It also differentiates itself from the free alternative get_track_record by noting it's the paid data behind whale_entry annotations.

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 explicitly names get_track_record as the free proof alternative, implying when to use that instead. It also provides clear context for when to use this tool (when paying for the calibration table) and operational prerequisites (set PRIVATE_KEY).

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