fomo_get_clan_holdings

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the object of the operation. It does not mention that this is a read-only fetch, what the response looks like, or any limits or side effects. The description does not contradict any annotation, but it also reveals almost nothing beyond the name.

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 extremely short and contains no filler or redundancybuilder. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it is so minimal that conciseness is achieved through omission rather than careful editing.

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 output schema and no parameter descriptions, the tool needs a more informative description to be safely callable by an agent. It omits the meaning of the required id parameter, the behavior of the optional limit, and any indication of what the output contains. This is materially insufficient for a getter tool with multiple siblings.

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 should explain id and limit, but it does neither. The phrase 'of a clan' weakly suggests that id refers to a clan, and limit is left entirely to inference. The description adds little to no parameter-level meaning over the raw schema.

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 'Token holdings of a clan' identifies the resource but is a noun phrase rather than a stated action, relying on the tool name to supply the 'get' behavior. It is clear what the tool is about, but it does not meaningfully distinguish this from the sibling fomo_get_clan_holding_breakdown, which sounds nearly identical.

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, what the id refers to, how limit behaves, or how this relates to the many sibling clan tools. The description does not even explicitly tell the agent to call it to retrieve data; it only names the outcome.

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