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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the economic model ($0.02 via x402) and the shape of the analysis (typed holders, concentration, bundling). It leaves failure modes, rate limits, and confirmation of read-only/non-mutating behavior unstated.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: analysis scope first, usage and price after. No filler, and the most decision-relevant 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned elements (typed top-10 holders, concentration, distribution, bundling). That is sufficient for a single-parameter read-only analytical tool, though it stops short of describing response format or defaults beyond the schema's own note.

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% for the single address parameter, including the pattern and the AERO-example fallback when omitted, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: holder analysis for an ERC-20 on Base, enumerating what is produced (top 10 holders typed wallet/contract/LP/burn, concentration, distribution, bundling). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rug_check or token_risk, which likely also touch supply concentration.

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?

"Use to judge supply concentration" gives a clear context for selecting this tool over generic token analysis. However, it names no alternatives (rug_check, token_risk) and states no exclusions or prerequisites, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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