research_token_holders

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the burden is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the data source (GoPlus Security) and the return payload (ranked holder addresses with balance and percentage share). It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond them by clarifying the data provenance and output structure.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and data source, the second explains the output and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool. There is no fluff or repetition, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with a fully described schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the data source, the output format, and a use case. It does not specify details like pagination or default chain behavior, but these are either in the schema or not critical for a top-holders query. The description is complete enough for an agent to select the tool correctly, especially given the schema and annotation coverage.

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 three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional value for parameters: it reinforces that 'token' is a contract address but does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'chainId' beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a score 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: 'Retrieve the top token holders for a given contract address using GoPlus Security data.' The verb 'retrieve' is specific, the resource is concrete, and the mention of GoPlus Security distinguishes it from similar tools like explorer_get_top_token_holders. The description also details the output (ranked list with balance and percentage) and intended analysis, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies a usage context ('enabling analysis of holder concentration and whale exposure') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as explorer_get_top_token_holders or research_token_due_diligence. It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. The differentiation via GoPlus Security data source is present but not leveraged into clear usage instructions.

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