opensea_collection_holders

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the operation is read-only (listing holders) and adds important runtime behavior: cursor-based pagination, ranking by quantity, and the conditional appearance of display names. It does not mention rate limits or edge cases, but the main behavioral aspects are covered.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It covers pagination, ranking, and display-name behavior with no filler, though slightly dense word ordering makes it a touch harder to parse than a simple two-sentence structure.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential facts an agent needs: what is returned (holders, addresses, quantities, display names), how it is ordered (by quantity), and that it is cursor-paginated. Missing details like allowed sort_direction values are minor and not critical for tool selection.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents slug, limit, cursor, and sort_direction. The description adds high-level context (pagination, ranking by quantity) that loosely relates to cursor and sort_direction, but it doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This is a baseline 3 for fully described schemas.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('an OpenSea collection's holders'), and key distinguishing details: the response is a cursor-paginated leaderboard ranked by quantity, with addresses and display names where available. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like opensea_collection_items or opensea_item_owners by scoping to collection-level holders.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need the list of wallets holding a specific OpenSea collection's items, ranked by how many they hold. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the collection-level wording makes the context unambiguous enough for an agent to choose it over item-level ownership tools.

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