token_monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cost (0.1 HBAR) which is useful context, but doesn't describe what 'monitor' actually returns, whether it's real-time or historical data, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the API key, or what constitutes 'unusual' patterns.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose - one describing the monitoring function, one stating the cost. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the monitoring results take, what time periods are covered, how 'whale movements' are defined, or what constitutes the returned data structure. The cost information is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 monitors token transfer activity, whale movements, and unusual trading patterns for a Hedera token, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like token_analyze or token_price, which might have overlapping monitoring functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like token_analyze or token_price. It mentions a cost (0.1 HBAR) which implies a usage consideration, but doesn't specify when this monitoring tool is preferable to other analysis tools.

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