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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new context: the upstream source (GoPlus lp_holders), the truncation to top 10 holders, the caveat that locker names appear only when GoPlus supplies them, and the paid-per-successful-call model ($0.002 USDC via x402, failures uncharged). The payment/auth requirement is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core measurement front-loaded, followed by scope exclusions and pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical asides and the elongated pricing clause make it slightly crowded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and 2 params at full coverage need no elaboration. For a read-only inspection tool the description covers source, scope limits, truncation behavior and cost — everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters (chain with default, address format) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the chain list and adds no syntax or behavioral meaning beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb-and-resource: the share of a token's LP tokens burned or locked, drawn from GoPlus lp_holders, with the supported chains enumerated. The listing behavior ('top 10 LP holders with lock flag and tag') and the explicit non-coverage (Uncx/Team.Finance/Streamflow) separate it from siblings like token_liquidity_migration_watch or token_composite_safety_score.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for LP lock/burn due-diligence, but nothing states when to pick it over siblings such as deployer_rug_forensics or token_verdict_engine. The negative scope ('does not query Uncx, Team.Finance or Streamflow directly') clarifies data-source limits rather than routing.

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