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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them by disclosing the endpoint quirk that USD market cap returns empty even on Solana, plus the wallet_type merging behavior. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 capability summary is front-loaded and tight, and the market-cap caveat is placed before the parameter recap so the key limitation is not buried. The trailing parameter block duplicates what the schema already states, which is minor waste but keeps the definition slightly longer than necessary.

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-value documentation is not required, yet the description still gives a useful sketch of the response shape. The market-cap caveat closes the main ambiguity an agent would hit. Remaining gaps (pagination, chain-specific wallet_type constraints already in schema) are minor.

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 the schema already documents blockchain, mint, and wallet_type with chain-specific wallet support. The description largely restates these (blockchain list, mint definition, wallet_type omission semantics) rather than adding new meaning, so the 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 first sentence names the resource (a token's trader/holder composition) and enumerates concrete outputs: KOL/smart-money/whale counts, bought vs sold, buying pressure, entries, and per-trader positions. It then frames itself as 'the main tool for "is anyone notable in this token"', which cleanly separates it from generic siblings like get_token_transactions or get_recent_trades.

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?

It states the primary use case explicitly and routes one alternative: market cap comes back empty here, so use get_token_holders instead. That is a genuinely useful when-not/alternative signal. It stops short of covering other nearby choices (e.g. get_token_holders for pure holder lists outside the notable-wallet framing).

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