get_whale_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It makes clear this is a read/query operation returning wallet addresses, sizes, prices, and transaction hashes, but it omits rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, and a precise definition of 'recent'.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It immediately states the action, resource, returned data, and venue scope.

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?

The description gives enough context for a read query: it names the resource, returned fields, and venue coverage. It is slightly incomplete because 'recent' is undefined and the venue list names only three of the schema's supported venues, but the schema fills those gaps.

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 parameter documentation is already handled by the input schema. The description adds useful domain context like block trades and whale orderflow, but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides for limit, venue, market_id, or min_size_usd.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: query recent block trades and institutional whale orderflow, including the data fields returned and supported venues. The tool is clearly distinct from siblings like orderbook and arbitrage scanners, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

It implies the tool is for whale/block trade queries but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent must infer the use case from the purpose statement alone.

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