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

Annotations indicate readOnly and non-destructive; description adds behavioral details: the scan takes 10-60 seconds, first call is free then paid, it provides enriched wallet stamps and a structure verdict. Adds context beyond annotations about cost, time, and data enrichment.

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 dense and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some phrasing (e.g., 'to the wei') could be trimmed. It is efficient but slightly verbose, earning a 4.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (diff, wallet stamps, verdict), the scan process, and limitations. It covers inputs, outputs, and usage flow, making it highly complete for a single-parameter tool.

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 sole parameter 'token' is fully described in the input schema (type and description). The description does not add extra parameter-specific details, but schema coverage is 100%, so 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 clearly states it produces a 'labeled holder-structure diff' for a token, detailing specific changes (who froze, added, trimmed, exited). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like robinx_token and robinx_verdict by focusing on holder structure changes over a 24-hour window.

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 implies usage: first call queues a free scan, second call retrieves results (paid). It mentions a limitation (cannot make price calls) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like robinx_smart_holders or robinx_signals. Guidance is present but implicit.

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