getTokenHolders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the retrieval action but fails to mention critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'offset' parameters but not explained), or expected output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity of blockchain data retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits), output format, and differentiation from similar tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use in this context.

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 low at 25%, with only the 'chain' parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name (e.g., 'tokenContract' is inferred but not explained). However, since there are only 4 parameters and the tool name strongly hints at their purpose, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though more detail would improve clarity.

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 action ('Retrieve') and target resources ('token holders and their balances for a given token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getHolders' or 'getNativeCoinHolders', which appear to serve similar purposes, missing an opportunity for precise distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'getHolders' or 'getNativeCoinHolders'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for application, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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