get_token_holders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that results are ordered by holdings descending and mentions the plan limitation, but it omits other behaviors like pagination via cursor, default sort behavior, and the fact that the sort parameter can change ordering. It also does not explain the format of the returned list or the unique count. The description is not misleading, but it is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence (plus a parenthetical plan note) that immediately states the function and key ordering detail. It contains no fluff, and every part earns its place. The parenthetical is a necessary usage restriction.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (including a nested sort object) and no output schema. The description explains the main output (list and unique count) but leaves gaps such as pagination behavior, sort options, and the shape of each wallet entry. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more detailed, but it still gives the essential purpose and a useful ordering detail.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including address, networkId, sort, and cursor. The description only refers to 'a given token' and 'ordered by holdings descending', which adds minimal extra meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 3 applies, and the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: returning a list of wallet holders for a given token, ordered by holdings descending, plus a unique holder count. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_10_holders_percent (which returns only top holders) and get_token_balances (which returns balances for an account). The verb 'returns' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 about what the tool does (returns holders and unique count) and a key restriction: it is only available on Codex Growth and Enterprise Plans. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this over get_top_10_holders_percent or get_token_holders. The plan restriction serves as a 'when not' clue, but no direct alternatives are mentioned.

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