whale-radar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns data and infers tier, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only (no mutation mentioned), any rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. It mentions 'Free upstream: Polymarket public data API' which indirectly suggests no auth, but not explicitly.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the purpose and return details. Every sentence adds value, though the list of use cases could be slightly more concise. No repetition or fluff.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (trades with market title, outcome, side, size in USDC, price, timestamp; open positions with title, size, avg price, current value, unrealized PnL). It also covers the inferred whale tier. Missing error handling or behavior for invalid wallets, but overall complete for a data retrieval 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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond a wallet example. The description does not elaborate on parameter types, constraints, or interactions beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool as providing Polymarket whale intelligence for a specific proxy wallet address, listing the exact data returned (trades and open positions with fields) and the whale tier inference. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single wallet's activity and tier classification.

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 mentions use cases (copy-trading signal generation, market-sentiment cross-reference, on-chain agent behavior profiling) but does not provide guidance on when to avoid this tool or contrast with sibling tools like `polymarket-whale-entries` or `polymarket-intel`. It implies usage context but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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