analyze_holder_distribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, what metrics 'distribution and concentration' resolve to, whether it covers on-chain holders only, or any rate/scope limits, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and object with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage context noted elsewhere.

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?

This is an analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should convey what the analysis yields (concentration metrics, top-holder breakdowns, etc.) and any caveats. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to call it correctly or interpret results.

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% and there is a single documented parameter ('symbol' as 'Fan token symbol'), so the schema already covers semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('token holder distribution and concentration'), which is clear enough for an agent to know what it does. However, it provides no differentiation from closely related siblings like get_token_holders or compare_token_distributions, so the agent cannot tell when this is preferred over those.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the symbol must be a known fan token), and no mention of alternatives such as get_token_holders or compare_token_distributions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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