Holder distribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: addresses are classified (liquidity pools, burn addresses, lockers, exchange wallets, contracts are filtered out), the return comes in a single response with no pagination, and the API unit cost is one on any chain. This exceeds the baseline for a read-only tool, though it stops short of detailing the exact response format.

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: first sentence defines the tool and its classification behavior, second sentence explains the output shape and use case, third sentence routes to alternatives, and the final sentence covers arguments and cost. It is slightly long, but every clause earns its place and the most important distinguishing behavior 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema present and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke correctly: purpose, exclusions, sibling routing, chain/address matching rules, response shape, and cost. The output schema covers return details, so the description doesn't need to. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter context: the address parameter is tied to chain selection ('Set chain to match the address'), and it reinforces that pool/pair/wallet/deployer addresses are not accepted. This supplements rather than repeats the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Holder distribution for one token') and distinguishes itself from several siblings by naming what it is not: get_whales, get_wallet_links, get_lookalike_clusters, and get_liquidity. The phrase 'so the top-holder list reflects actual holders' clarifies the core value proposition, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it to answer how concentrated the supply is and whether a few wallets could collapse the chart') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives ('Not for what large holders are doing right now (get_whales), whether holders are secretly one actor (get_wallet_links or get_lookalike_clusters), or pool depth and locks (get_liquidity)'). This is exactly the kind of routing information an agent needs.

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