whale_activity

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/query operation (implied read-only), returns specific data fields, includes a cost ('Price: $0.002 USDC per call'), and implies recency ('recent', 'minutes_ago'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, return details, and cost information in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage context, return fields, and cost. However, for a tool with financial implications (cost per call) and potential complexity in interpreting 'large transfers,' it could benefit from mentioning error cases or data freshness guarantees to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (token symbol and minimum USD threshold). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as token format examples or USD threshold rationale. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Detect recent large wallet movements') and resource ('for a token'), with the parenthetical 'whale tracking' reinforcing the specialized purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet_balance (which checks balances) or token_price (which checks prices) by focusing on transaction monitoring.

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 'Use when:' section explicitly states the context ('You need to detect large token transfers that may signal institutional moves, accumulation, or sell-offs'), providing clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. It directly addresses the agent's decision-making needs.

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