get_smart_money_radar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful selection behavior, including the >70% win-rate threshold and aggressive accumulation by verified whale wallets, but it omits rate-limit, access/payment, freshness, and return-format behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no boilerplate or repetition. Every phrase contributes to the core scan criteria.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what the scan returns, how results are ranked, and how paymentProof affects access. The parameter schema covers inputs, but the description does not complete the picture of output or operational limits.

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 explains limit, network, and paymentProof. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 (scans), resource (top trending tokens), and selection criterion (aggressively accumulated by verified >70% win-rate whale wallets). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_token_whale_activity or detect_insider_clusters.

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 implies a use case by saying it scans for trending smart-money accumulation, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent is left to infer whether this is for discovery, confirmation, or comparison against the sibling whale-activity tools.

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