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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by defining what counts as a 'smart wallet' (early 2x track record) and an 'insider' (linked to a dev), and by disclosing that results include how many wallets still hold and the move since the first smart buy — meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with zero filler and the core notion (tokens bought by smart wallets) is front-loaded. The two parenthetical glosses on 'smart wallets' and 'insiders' add value, though the nested clauses make it read as a run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back, but for a five-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage it omits how limit, min_wallets, and sort actually change results. An agent can call it with defaults but cannot confidently tune it.

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 description coverage is only 20% across five parameters, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It touches only the window ('within a window') and the default ordering ('most wallets first'), leaving limit, min_wallets, the sort enum values, and montra_only undocumented in either place except the one inline schema 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 names a specific resource (tokens) and a specific filter (bought by smart wallets and insiders within a window), plus the return content (holder counts and move since first smart buy). That makes it clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings such as get_feed or get_top_wallets, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternative siblings like search_tokens or get_launches. Use is only inferable from the data it returns (smart-money discovery), which leaves the agent to guess at routing.

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