polymarket_holders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals output shape (top-level array) but omits important traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, error responses for invalid markets, or whether 'top' implies sorting by amount. This leaves the agent with many unknowns.

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 very short and front-loaded with purpose, but the included return format is helpful. It wastes no words, yet it could incorporate essential parameter details or behavioral notes without exceeding a concise length.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage scenarios, and behavioral characteristics, forcing the agent to rely on guesswork or external knowledge to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly ties 'market' to the market identifier and 'limit' to the number of holders via 'top holders', but does not explicitly define either parameter, their formats, or constraints. The agent must guess how to provide the market field.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves top holders of outcome tokens for a given market, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_market or polymarket_book. However, it does not specify what 'top' means (e.g., by token amount or holder count), slightly reducing precision.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose, without context about required identifiers or scenarios where other tools (e.g., polymarket_search) might be more appropriate.

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