Whale activity for one market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the paid nature ('PAID (~$0.01)'), the time window ('7-day'), and the included aggregate metrics. While it does not mention output shape or edge cases, the cost and time-scope are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the cost, then lists the tool's data scope and required parameter. There is no redundancy, fluff, or architectural overhead, every token adds value.

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 simple tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the cost, market context, time range, and the exact aggregates included. The main missing piece is a fuller explanation of 'condition_id', but the overall tool is simple enough that this description provides a sufficient level of context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only names the parameter via 'Param: condition_id' without explaining what it means, how to obtain it, or the expected format beyond the regex in the schema. The surrounding phrase 'for one Polymarket market' provides a weak hint, but it does not compensate for the lack of semantic guidance.

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 specifies what the tool does: it returns '7-day whale activity + aggregates' for 'one Polymarket market'. The list of aggregates (volume, YES/NO split, net flow, unique wallets) further makes the purpose concrete. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like predge_whales_latest by explicitly scoping to a single market.

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 phrase 'for one Polymarket market' implies when to use the tool, and the required condition_id supports that context. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, such as when needing cross-market or wallet-driven whale data. The usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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