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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists the metrics provided but does not state that this is a read-only operation, what data source is used, or any rate limits. It only mentions what is tracked, not how the tool behaves. Score 2.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy. A perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must compensate. It covers the main purpose and the type of output metrics. However, it omits any mention of required parameters, return format, or usage context. It is adequate but not complete, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 schema descriptions cover all 3 parameters with clear meaning (mint, threshold_usd, lookback_hours), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little specific parameter semantics beyond confirming that thresholds relate to whale activity, which is already in 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 uses the specific verb 'Track' and identifies a concrete resource: 'top token holders,' followed by specifics (balances, % supply, buy/sell volumes, accumulation vs distribution). This clearly states the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like smart_money_flow, but the focus on top holders is distinctive enough for a 4.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios or exclusions, such as 'for large transfers use smart_money_flow.' This is a gap.

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