fomo_get_clan_holding_breakdown

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 reveals almost nothing: what 'holding' denotes, whether the output is paginated, whether it requires any special context, what the response shape looks like, or whether it reflects current vs historical data. The single phrase answers 'what' but not 'how' or 'what to expect'.

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 six-word phrase is not bloated, but it is severely under-specified rather than efficiently structured. While it front-loads the core idea, the brevity crosses into omission — it functions as a heading, not a specification.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is entirely insufficient. The agent is left guessing at parameter semantics, return format, and the distinction from closely related clan tools. It does nothing to fill the gaps left by the structured fields.

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%, so the description must explain the three parameters (id, tokenAddress, networkId), but it explains none of them. An agent cannot determine whether 'id' is a clan id, a holding id, or a user id, nor what tokenAddress/networkId reference. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema field names.

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 states a specific verb ('breakdown') and resource ('one clan holding') with a clear scope ('per-member'). This meaningfully differentiates it from fomo_get_clan_holdings, which presumably returns whole-clan holdings, and from related tools like fomo_get_balances. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, relying on inference.

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 fomo_get_clan_holdings, fomo_get_balances, or fomo_get_clan. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned. An agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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