Get HoodGrow token holder analytics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral details: pricing ($0.05 via x402, free with API key), failure mode (unknown symbol), refresh cadence (every 4 hours), source (explorer-sourced), and a nuanced clarification of the supply change metric (real mint/burn vs. corporate-action multiplier). This goes well beyond the 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?

Two sentences, efficiently structured. The first sentence lists the key outputs, the second covers pricing, failure mode, and data freshness. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description lists the main analytical outputs but does not fully describe the response structure, especially given there is no output schema. It mentions 'top-holder concentration' but not the top-holder list implied by the limit parameter. Also lacks specifics on the trend period. It covers key points but leaves gaps in what an agent can expect in the response.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description adds value by specifying that the tool is for 'one token' (clarifying symbol's singular scope) and that it fails for unknown symbols, a parameter-specific behavior not in the schema. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it entirely.

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's purpose: providing holder-count trend, 24h net total_supply change, and top-holder concentration for one token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_token or get_corporate_actions by explicitly calling out the real mint/burn nature of supply change and the token-specific scope.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when needing holder analytics for a single token) and notes it fails for unknown symbols. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion criteria but provides enough context for selection.

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