fomo_dev_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation through the word 'holdings' but says nothing about response shape, denominations, permissions, rate limits, or edge behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It contains no actionable detail and reads more like a label than a tool definition.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for confident invocation. The agent can guess it returns token holdings but cannot determine what is returned or what the networkId means.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description does not explain tokenAddress or networkId. 'For a token' only loosely maps to tokenAddress, and networkId is completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to understand network scoping or required values.

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 names a resource ('dev holdings') and a scope ('for a token'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb, and 'dev' is left undefined, making the purpose vague and easy to misread.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus a sibling like fomo_top_holders, fomo_get_balances, or fomo_friends_holdings. The only usage signal is the phrase 'dev holdings,' which does not clarify selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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