wallet_whale_movements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states the basic action and gives no details on side effects, return format, or data scope. Since there is no contradiction with annotations (none exist), but it fails to add behavioral context, it scores 2.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies the tool's behavior, though for conciseness alone it is efficient. Score 4.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what data is returned, how many transactions, or the relationships between parameters. It lacks contextual completeness, scoring 2.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (chain, hours, minValueUSD). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Track recent large transactions (whale movements)' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb (track) and resource (recent large transactions). It is easily understood, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wallet_detect_whales or alert_whale_movement, so it scores 4.

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 other whale-related or transaction-tracking tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, so it scores 2.

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