get_rune_holders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (addresses + balances) and ordering (descending by amount held), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination defaults, rate limits, or permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return content. No filler or 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully states the returned fields and sort order. Pagination is covered by schema. Minor gaps remain around what 'top' defaults to and how results are ordered for ties, but overall it is complete enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: name (with format example), limit, and offset are all documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the resource being queried, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (top holders of a Bitcoin Rune), plus what is returned (addresses and balances sorted by amount held). The qualifier 'Bitcoin Rune' implicitly separates it from the BRC-20 sibling get_brc20_holders, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the holder-listing tool versus get_rune_balances (per-address) or get_rune_info (token metadata).

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