polymarket_holders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'Auth: none needed,' which is not covered by annotations, and discloses the return structure (top-level array) and the presence of non-enumerated fields (…). 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 text is relatively short, but the inclusion of the odd 'Also answers this: kalshi_trades.' line is off-topic and unhelpful, detracting from the overall structure. The return format and auth are clear, but the stray line feels like an accidental note.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should fully describe the return value; it gives a partial structure with '…' and doesn't elaborate on the meaning of 'proxyWallet' or 'amount.' It also doesn't explain how to obtain the 'condition id' beyond the schema. The cryptic kalshi_trades note adds noise rather than completeness.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (market as 'Condition id.' and limit as 'Max holders per token.'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns 'Top holders of a market's outcome tokens,' which clearly conveys the resource and action. It distinguishes from typical trading tools like 'polymarket_trades' by focusing on holders rather than trades, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The cryptic line 'Also answers this: kalshi_trades.' is confusing and fails to clarify the intended context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without clear routing information.

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