check_holders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'analyze', which implies read-only, but does not confirm whether it is a safe read operation, whether it makes external calls, or any potential side effects. No mention of data freshness, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of analyzing token holder distribution for risk, the description lacks details about what constitutes a risk signal, how the analysis is performed, or the output format. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about return values.

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 100%, and the schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Token contract address (0x...)' and 'Chain name: "ethereum", "base", "bsc", etc.'). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Analyze' and clearly identifies the resource 'token holder distribution' with the explicit purpose of assessing 'centralization and rug-pull risk'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'audit_contract' (security audit) and 'scan_vulns' (vulnerability scanning).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description merely states the tool's function without contextualizing its use relative to siblings.

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