Active Traders

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the exact 24-hour window, the exchange-wide scope, the inclusion of a match count, and the 120-second cache behavior. This is genuinely useful operational information.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core metric definition, then notes the headline alias, then adds the cache caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no 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 zero-required-parameter, single-optional-parameter tool, this description is complete. It defines the metric precisely, mentions the additional match count, and discloses caching behavior. No critical usage context is missing.

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, useToonFormat, is fully documented in the schema with its default and meaning. The description does not need to add parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema 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 states a precise, measurable definition: distinct wallets that filled at least one perp trade in the last 24h, exchange-wide, plus total match count. It also identifies itself as the 'daily active traders' headline number, making its purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from more granular trader metric tools.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when the daily active trader count is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many pulse sibling tools, such as pulse_global_stats or pulse_leaderboard.

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