Smart-money consensus (premium)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is paid (~$0.03 premium), filters to active markets with whale activity in 24h, uses a smart-money score threshold of >70, and returns net flow, YES/NO volume, and a direction verdict. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the most important constraint ('PAID') and then lists the scope and outputs efficiently. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content: per-market net flow, YES/NO volume, and direction verdict. It could be slightly richer by saying what 'direction verdict' looks like or clarifying market counts, but for this simple tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does add meaningful context about the dataset and output fields that would otherwise be entirely missing.

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 identifies the resource as a smart-money consensus signal for active markets with whale activity in the last 24h, listing specific outputs: net flow, YES/NO volume, and direction verdict. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the intent is evident and distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing 'consensus' and 'premium'.

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 gives useful context about when this tool applies: active markets with whale activity in 24h. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like predge_signals_daily or predge_signals_market, nor does it mention exclusions or use cases.

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