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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state whether the tool returns a simple list, time series, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the mention of distribution but not clearly disclosed.

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 extremely short and has no redundant words, which is concise. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, lacking a subject-verb structure. It is front-loaded but under-specified, so it does not fully earn its place as a standalone description.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the return value looks like. 'Top holder distribution, whale concentration' is a high-level topic but does not specify whether the tool returns a list of addresses, percentages, or other details. The lack of output schema and richer description leaves the agent with insufficient context to anticipate the result format.

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 schema already fully describes the 'symbol' parameter with an example ('USDC, USDT'), and the description adds the context that the data concerns holder distribution for that symbol. However, it does not provide additional detail about how the symbol maps to output or any special formatting, 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?

The description 'Top holder distribution, whale concentration' clearly indicates the tool provides holder distribution and whale concentration data for a given symbol, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like peg_history or supply_flow. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', making it more of a label than a full action statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like risk_assessment or leaderboard. It simply names the data topics without any contextual advice.

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