fomo_friends_holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states a query outcome. It does not disclose that this is a read-only lookup, how the friends set is determined, whether it includes the current user, pagination behavior, or any restrictions. It gives no behavioral in every layer of the operation.

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 contains no padding, presenting its intent front and center. However, it does not have enough content to properly accomplish with its intended purpose; under-specification rather than conciseness is the main concern here.

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 there is no annotations, no output schema, and a nested `tokens` input structure, the description is too thin to fully explain the behavior. It needs to clarify the structure of the token objects and the meaning of 'friends' to be contextually complete.

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 has one parameter, `tokens`, but 0% description coverage. The description merely repeats the word 'tokens' without explaining that each item requires `tokenAddress` and `networkId`, or what those fields mean. The agent would have to guess how to construct a valid token object for the intended network.

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 phrase 'Which friends hold which tokens' uses the verb 'hold' and a unique resource ('friends'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fomo_get_clan_holdings or fomo_get_dev_holdings. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't specify whose friends are involved or whether the output is grouped by token or friend.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, whether it requires a logged-in user's friend graph, has exclusions, or any prerequisite context. The agent must infer the use case from the name and short phrase.

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