get_top_10_holders_percent

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether the return is a single aggregate percentage or a list, how missing data is handled, or any other behavioral traits.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description must clarify the return value. The phrase 'the percentage' is ambiguous—whether it is a single number or an array of percentages is unclear. The description is too minimal to be considered complete for an agent to use reliably.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to address and networkId, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the percentage of tokens held by top 10 holders' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_token_holders' by focusing on the percentage, though it doesn't explicitly call out the alternative.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_token_holders'. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the use case without explicit context or exclusions.

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