alert_whale_movement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates an alert, without mentioning side effects (e.g., persistence, notification mechanism), prerequisites, or what happens upon creation. This is insufficient for a creation/mutation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently with a clear verb and resource, making it appropriately sized and well-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 tool with moderate complexity, the description covers purpose and the schema covers parameters, but it lacks guidance on post-creation behavior (e.g., how alerts are delivered or managed) and doesn't reference sibling alert management tools like alert_list or alert_delete. With no output schema, the agent is left without information on the return format.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema — 'large transactions' is essentially synonymous with the minValueUSD parameter description. No extra semantic value is provided.

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 it creates an alert for large transactions on a token or wallet, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other alert tools by focusing on 'large transactions' (whale movements), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like alert_wallet_activity or wallet_whale_movements.

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 the primary use case (creating whale alerts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as alert_wallet_activity or alert_price. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, making usage context only implied.

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