Get HoodGrow token holder analytics

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: x402 pricing and free daily quota, unknown-symbol failure, explorer sourcing, 4-hour refresh cadence, and on-chain supply snapshots. It also clarifies the real mint/burn semantics of total_supply change.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: metrics, pricing, failure mode, and data provenance. It is front-loaded with the core analytics and uses a parenthetical only where precision matters (mint/burn vs. multiplier change).

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the returned analytics, states the data source and refresh policy, documents failure behavior and cost, and the input parameters are fully covered by the schema. This is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'one token' and 'top-holder concentration' loosely reinforce the symbol and limit parameters, but it adds no syntax, default, or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 enumerates the exact analytics returned—holder-count trend, 24h net supply change, and top-holder concentration—for one token. It also explicitly distinguishes the supply-change metric from a corporate-action multiplier change, which separates it from the sibling get_corporate_actions tool.

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 clear usage context: it is for a single token's holder analytics, fails on unknown symbols, refreshes every 4 hours, and carries a specific cost. The corporate-action multiplier clarification is an explicit exclusion that guides the agent toward or away from a sibling tool.

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