Get asset holder rank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' plus the parenthetical return summary signals a safe read with a defined output shape, but it says nothing about behavior for accounts that hold none of the asset, whether the rank is 1-based, or how the default network is resolved.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and packs the scope and return summary in a parenthetical with zero wasted words.

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 3-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and return values adequately; no output schema exists, so the mention of position and total holder count is valuable. Minor gaps remain around edge cases like non-holders and network fallback.

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 asset format (CODE-ISSUER), account pattern, and the network default are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (relative balance rank among holders of an asset) and clarifies the returned values (position and total holder count). This is clearly distinct from the sibling list_asset_holders, though the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for 'where does this account rank' rather than 'who holds this asset', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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