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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the top-20 wallet limit, the per-call cost (0.008 USDC, x402, chains supported), and the important interpretive caveat that a shared funder can itself be an exchange (i.e., a false-positive risk).

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the return shape, then the caveat, then the cost. Reasonably tight, though the payment/chain enumeration is a slight tail that could be trimmed.

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?

Given an output schema exists and only one required parameter, the description covers the essentials: when to use, what is returned, a key interpretive warning, and the payment requirement. Little is missing for an agent 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 description coverage is 100% for the single mint parameter, so the schema already carries full documentation. The description adds the "top 20 wallets" scope but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specific verb+resource+scope: it determines whether a Solana token's holders are one owner and returns funder clusters. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_token_holders or get_wallet_holdings by focusing on the shared-funder clustering question.

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?

"Use when an agent needs to know whether a Solana token's holders are one owner" gives a clear triggering condition. It does not name or exclude a specific alternative sibling, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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