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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new context: the cost model ($0.01 USDC per call via x402 or prepaid credits) and free-trial availability, which an agent needs before invoking a paid endpoint. It also discloses the trend semantics (concentrating vs distributing) and that history is stored rather than computed on demand. It stops short of describing pagination or rate limits.

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 metric scope is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, with pricing and trial status following as a short second sentence. Every clause carries information an agent can act on; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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, so return formatting need not be explained, yet the description still gives a thorough inventory of what comes back, plus cost and trial terms. The only real gap is that supported chains are left entirely to the schema enum rather than surfaced in prose.

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%, so all three parameters (address, chain, days) are already documented with types, defaults, ranges, and an enum. The description adds only the loose phrase 'now and over time,' which hints at the days parameter but supplies no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 resource (token holder concentration) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: holder count, top-1/top-10 share, sellable top 10 excluding pools and locks, exchange/fund/contract holdings, labelled holders, and historical changes. It is highly specific, though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like token-whales or token-report, which also cover on-chain token analytics.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., token-whales for individual whale activity). Usage is only implied by the metric list, so an agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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