whale_alpha_radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an explicit $0.10 USDC price, the exact chain coverage set, and a breakdown of the three processing stages. It omits latency, rate limits, and failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

One compact sentence with a leading label, the paid-price marker front-loaded, and no redundant filler. Every clause adds a distinct fact (cost, scope, chain set, matching logic, output computation).

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the deliverable, and it does name the three report components (portfolio profile, matched yield pools, projected annual yield) plus the price. It leaves edge cases unspecified, such as behavior on wallets with no idle stablecoin balance or unlisted chains, so it is strong but not exhaustive for a multi-chain DeFi 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single address parameter is fully documented as a '0x... 40-hex EVM wallet address.' The description adds only that the wallet is profiled across four chains, which is scope rather than parameter semantics. With the schema carrying the load, baseline 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 states a concrete verb and resource: it profiles a 0x wallet across four named EVM chains, matches idle USDC/ETH against DeFiLlama yield pools, and computes projected annual yield. That is far more specific than a title restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like wallet_profiler and defi_yields, which appear to cover overlapping ground, so it falls 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings named wallet_profiler and defi_yields sitting right next to it, the description should say why an agent would pick this bundled report over those narrower tools, and it does not. Usage is only weakly implied by the capability list.

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