whale_alerts

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 adds valuable context about cost ('$0.02 USDC via x402') and scope ('recent', 'large', 'on-chain'), which aren't in the schema. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or what constitutes 'large' movements. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context (cost and mechanism). There's no wasted language or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating cost information into its own clause.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and cost information but lacks details about response format, error conditions, rate limits, and use case guidance. Without an output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns, but it doesn't. The cost disclosure is valuable but doesn't compensate for other missing 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions neither 'network' nor 'limit' parameters. According to the scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get recent large cryptocurrency movements (whale alerts)' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'large cryptocurrency movements'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on whale alerts rather than price data, sentiment analysis, or other crypto-related functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'check_token_tiers' or 'wallet_score' might also involve cryptocurrency analysis).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions tracking 'significant token transfers on-chain', it doesn't explain when whale alerts are preferable to other crypto tools like 'get_crypto_price', 'get_ohlcv', or 'token_analysis'. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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