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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds material behavioral context they do not carry: the paid x402 model, the exact per-call price, and the accepted settlement chains. It also scopes some metrics to mints under 7 days, which is real behavioral nuance.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the returned metrics and cost. Every clause carries information, though the metric list is dense and could be slightly tightened.

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 values need no elaboration, and the description still supplies enough (trigger, metric coverage, time-window caveat, cost/auth model) for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only real omission is pagination/truncation behavior beyond what the schema's swaps note already says.

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 the schema already documents the mint address and the swaps range/default/truncation semantics in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 specific verb and resource ('who is trading a Solana token') and enumerates the concrete output metrics (unique traders, top-5 volume share, round-trip wallets, new-buyer share, launch-slot bundle size). This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings like get_token_holders, get_sol_holder_clusters and get_sol_token_check.

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 who is trading a Solana token' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not, however, name a competing alternative (e.g. holder-centric tools) or state when-not-to-use it, so the routing guidance stops short of the explicit-alternatives bar.

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