polymarket_holders

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

The description adds the return structure and authentication requirement, which go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It discloses the top-level array format and that no auth is needed, enriching the agent's understanding. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with 'Returns:' and 'Auth:' sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary content.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description provides a return template, but 'top holders' is not defined (e.g., by amount) and the '…' in the return shape leaves ambiguity. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify these details more fully.

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 100%: both 'market' (Condition id) and 'limit' (Max holders per token) are fully described in the schema. The description text does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it provides top holders of a market's outcome tokens, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling Polymarket tools like polymarket_book or polymarket_trades. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'List' or 'Get', though the 'Returns:' section makes the retrieval intent clear.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context for choosing it over other Polymarket data tools. The only extra note is 'Auth: none needed,' which is not usage direction.

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