nansen: nansen_smart_money_holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true, so the description's behavioral burden is lower. It adds context that results are 'aggregated across smart money wallets' and 'shows what funds and whales are holding', but does not mention data freshness, pagination behavior, or any limitations beyond what annotations already convey.

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?

Two concise sentences that directly state the function and what the output represents. No superfluous words or fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description gives a high-level idea of the return type (aggregated holdings, showing funds/whales), which is moderately helpful. However, it omits details like whether the data is per-wallet, sorted, or includes additional metadata. For a tool with simple parameters and a clear domain, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'chain' and 'per_page' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity. Baseline score 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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'current token holdings aggregated across smart money wallets', clearly stating what the tool does. It also adds context 'shows what funds and whales are holding', distinguishing it from sibling tools like nansen_smart_money_flows or nansen_smart_money_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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for related queries.

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