explorer_get_token_holders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are paginated, which is useful, but it does not disclose other aspects like rate limits, response format, or how pagination parameters interact. It does not contradict annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool has non-obvious distinctions from siblings (explorer_get_top_token_holders), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the holder list contains (e.g., addresses, amounts), how to traverse multiple pages, or how page/pageSize behave in practice. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for effective use.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description text does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as relationships or defaults, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (paginated list of token holders for a given token contract), making it easy to understand the core function. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like explorer_get_top_token_holders or research_token_holders, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention that this is for full holder lists as opposed to top holders, nor does it explain any pagination strategies or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description simply states the operation without context.

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