Get Asset Holders

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that data comes from a centralized explorer rather than the hub, may lag, and is capped at 100 holders per call. It also explains raw amount semantics and display formatting, giving the agent important behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 front-loaded with the recommended use case and then organized into clear labeled paragraphs for network and amount handling. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 lack of an output schema, the description explains what is returned: holders sorted descending, raw and display amounts, and total supply. It also covers network behavior, a data-source caveat, and the critical raw-amount formatting rule. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description carries the param documentation burden. It clearly explains asset_or_symbol as a token symbol or 44-character asset id, and network as mainnet/testnet with a default. Limit is only implied by 'Up to 100 holders per call,' but the schema already defines its min/max, so the combined picture is adequate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it gets asset holders, sorted by balance descending, with raw/display amounts and total supply. It also gives trigger phrases like 'who holds', 'top-holders list', and 'distribution/concentration', making the tool easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: whenever the user asks about holders, top-holders, or token distribution. It also gives network-selection guidance and warns to confirm the network if unspecified. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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