nansen: nansen_smart_money_holdings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about aggregation across smart money wallets and what the data represents (holdings of funds/whales), enhancing transparency beyond 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—two sentences, 11 words—and front-loads the action ('Get current token holdings'). Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and what it shows. It could define 'smart money wallets' or mention nesting/grouping, but is sufficient for the context.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema's 'chain' and 'per_page' descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate or enrich parameter semantics.

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 current token holdings aggregated across smart money wallets, specifying 'funds and whales'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nansen_smart_money_flows (flows) and nansen_smart_money_trades (trades).

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 implies usage for getting aggregated holdings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use conditions or distinctions from similar nansen tools are given.

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