get_holder_deepdive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost ('$0.10'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention execution time, rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific output format to expect, leaving gaps for a tool with complex analysis capabilities.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by specific capabilities and cost information in just two sentences. However, the comma-separated list of analysis types could be slightly more readable with better formatting.

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?

For a complex analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and cost information but lacks details about what the analysis actually returns, how results are structured, or any limitations. The context signals suggest this is a single-parameter tool, but the analysis complexity warrants more complete documentation.

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% with one parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 performs 'Deep holder analysis' with specific capabilities: sniper detection, Jito bundle analysis, fresh wallet clustering, whale concentration, and connected wallet patterns. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive holder analysis rather than risk checks, blacklists, or social intelligence.

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 detecting 'coordinated manipulation' in token holders, providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the analysis focus suggests differentiation from simpler checks.

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