track_whales

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a detection tool (implies read-only), requires a baseline establishment, uses APY-change heuristics, and has a PRO requirement with API key. It also mentions the reporting format (pool, direction, amount, etc.), adding valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: detection criteria, reporting details, usage sequence, heuristics, and requirements. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (detection with heuristics and baselines), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage flow, behavioral traits, and requirements. However, it lacks explicit error handling or rate limit details, which could enhance completeness for a PRO tool.

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 schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'TVL changed by >$500K' (mapping to min_tvl_change default) and implies time-based detection, but does not explicitly explain 'chain' or 'timeframe' parameters. The description adds some meaning (e.g., threshold and heuristic context) but does not fully cover all parameters, resulting in a baseline score.

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's purpose: 'Detect large capital movements (whale activity) across DeFi pools.' It specifies the exact threshold (>$500K TVL change) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_pool' or 'defi_overview' by focusing on capital flow detection rather than general analysis or overview.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for detecting whale activity based on TVL changes and APY correlations. It mentions 'First call establishes a baseline; subsequent calls detect actual changes,' guiding sequential usage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the focus on capital movements implies differentiation from tools like 'calculate_impermanent_loss' or 'simulate_profit.'

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