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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that valuations use one current HYPE price, that balances are last-known and may be stale relative to a freshly resolved pnl_cohort label, that account_value is null (never 0) for holders without a perp account, and that paging is keyset-based. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 resource and ranking rule, and every clause (valuation basis, staleness, null semantics, paging, endpoint equivalence) carries information. The first sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy, slightly hurting scanability, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description does much of the return-shape work by naming the key fields (balance + staked, pnl_cohort, label_basis, account_value, nextCursor). It stops short of enumerating the full record (e.g., the wallet identifier and other cohort fields), leaving some gaps for a consumer parsing rows.

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 limit, order, and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the largest-first default and keyset paging but adds no syntax or value constraints beyond structured data, so 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 resource and scope: the HYPE holder leaderboard, ranked largest-first, with spot + staked balance and two extra fields. An agent can immediately tell this is HYPE-holder ranked data, not perp traders or vaults. It lacks any explicit contrast with nearby siblings such as token_holders or hl_leaderboard, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the dataset description (a ranked holder leaderboard), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only operational guidance — 'omit cursor for the first page' — is already in the schema.

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