Get Polymarket market holders (whales)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add substantive context: amounts are share counts that resolve to $1 per winning share, anonymous holders appear as shortened wallets, and it names the exact error strings. This is meaningful behavior beyond structured fields, though it stops short of describing ordering/pagination guarantees.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then cleanly sectioned into Args, Returns, Notes, Errors. Every block is relevant, though the Returns section duplicates what the existing output schema already provides.

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?

Covers the one-of slug/condition_id requirement, limit bounds, format options, the share-count semantics, and the failure modes. With annotations carrying safety and an output schema present, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by explaining why slug is preferred ('so outcomes get named') and by enumerating each parameter with meaning (limit = top holders per outcome, response_format tradeoff), adding rationale the schema does not carry.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus a precise resource (largest holders of each outcome, the 'whales'). It explicitly scopes itself against the leaderboard concept ('not a global leaderboard'), letting an agent separate it from polymarket_get_leaderboard without opening schemas.

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?

States the analytical purpose ('see who is positioned on each side and how concentrated a market is') and gives a clear selector rule (slug preferred so outcomes get named, OR condition_id), plus a contrast with the global leaderboard. It lacks explicit when-not guidance relative to siblings like polymarket_get_market or polymarket_get_positions.

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