Latest whale trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does well by disclosing the paid cost (~$0.005), the 15-minute delay, and the minimum notional threshold. It also lists the returned fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior, though rate limits, ordering, and error behavior are not mentioned.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the most important operational detail (paid), then lists the data fields and the parameter. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: cost, delay, threshold, output fields, and parameter range/default are all covered. Missing details like response format or ordering would raise it further, but they are not critical for basic usage.

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 only parameter is described as 'limit (1-100, default 50)', which adds the default value and repeats the schema's min/max range. However, it never explicitly states that limit controls the maximum number of trades returned. This is adequate for a single simple parameter but does not fully compensate for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 a listing/retrieval tool for the latest Polymarket whale trades, with specific criteria (≥$10k notional, 15-min delay) and output fields. It differentiates from siblings like predge_wallet_history and predge_bets_biggest, but lacks an explicit verb such as 'List' or 'Returns', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The use case is implied by the name and threshold details, but no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability on its own.

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