explorer_get_top_token_holders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are sorted by balance and limited to top N, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like default count, ordering direction, or pagination, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with clear annotations and fully described parameters, the description is largely complete. It lacks a brief note on the expected return format (e.g., list of addresses and balances) and does not differentiate from the similar explorer_get_token_holders, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents all three parameters (count, chainId, contractAddress). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond echoing 'top N' for count and 'token contract' for contractAddress, so the baseline of 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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the top N token holders by balance for a given token contract.' It specifies the resource (token holders), the operation (get), and the scope (top N by balance), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like explorer_get_token_holders or research_token_holders.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using it for quick top-holder lookups, nor any exclusions like 'for full holder lists, use explorer_get_token_holders.' The description does not differentiate use cases.

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