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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the paid cost of 0.010 USDC and the supported networks, which is 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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core outputs and network scope are front-loaded, and the cost detail is placed after the capability statement.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the input schema is fully documented, so the description need not explain return values or parameter syntax. It is largely complete for invocation, though it could do more to clarify when this combined holder/lock/sybil view should be chosen over related sibling tools.

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 100% and there is only one required parameter, token_address, which the schema fully documents. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb, 'Returns', and specific resources: top-10/top-50 holder distribution, LP lock percentage, and coordinated sybil cluster detection. It also states the supported networks, making the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as rugshield_audit_holder_cluster_map or rugshield_audit_liquidity_lock_verify.

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 says the tool works 'for any Solana or Base token' and gives a cost, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternative sibling tools. An agent must infer usage context from the output list alone.

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