get_token_whale_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only analysis but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or the payment/credit model that the optional 'paymentProof' parameter clearly signals — a material omission for a paid-tier data tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then the measured outputs, with no filler. It could be tightened only slightly by folding in the tool's relationship to its siblings.

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 should explain the shape of the returned analysis and the cost/payment implications of 'paymentProof'. It conveys the metric names but leaves return structure, units (beyond the 0-100 score), and pricing behavior unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains network, tokenAddress, and paymentProof. The description adds nothing about parameters and actually under-reports the supported networks by listing five of the six enum values, leaving 'polygon' undocumented in prose.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Analyzes a token') and enumerates the concrete outputs (Smart Money net inflow, whale holding dominance, accumulation score 0-100), which distinguishes it from wallet-level siblings like profile_wallet_smart_money. However, it never contrasts itself with get_smart_money_radar or detect_insider_clusters, and its network list omits 'polygon' which the schema enum supports.

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 says what is measured but never states when to reach for this tool versus the sibling analytics tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the use case from the metric names alone.

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