get_trc20_token_holders

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source is 'TronGrid indexed data' (suggesting possible latency), it specifies the return shape (addresses and balances), and explicitly notes pagination via limit + fingerprint. It does not discuss rate limits or data freshness, but the added details are meaningful.

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 compact and ends with the most important operational note (pagination) up front. Every word earns its place: it states the action, resource, data source, return contents, and pagination method in just two sentences. No filler or redundancy.

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 partially compensates by stating what is returned ('holder addresses and their balances'). The 5 input parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the description highlights the key interaction between limit and fingerprint. It lacks mention of orderBy behavior or potential data lag, but given the simplicity of the tool and the annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, giving the baseline a 3. The description adds a layer of semantic meaning beyond schema by stating that pagination is handled via 'limit + fingerprint', which implies these two parameters work together. This is extra context not present in the individual schema entries, so a 4 is justified.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Get token holder list for a TRC20 contract' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_trc20_balances and get_token_balance. It also specifies the data source (TronGrid indexed data) and the core output (holder addresses and balances), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to enumerate holders of a TRC20 token from indexed data). It implies the use case without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it over retrieval of account-specific balances or general contract reads.

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