get_token_holders

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description provides no details on pagination, return format, rate limits, or any side effects. It lacks transparency about what the caller should expect from the tool.

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 concise sentence with no fluff and clearly front-loads the core purpose. It is efficiently written, though it could be slightly richer; however, for the dimension of conciseness, it earns a high score.

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 low complexity (2 params) but no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool is not fully contextualized. Important details like the default limit, what data is returned, and whether the list is ordered or paginated are missing, making the description incomplete for an agent to invoke it optimally.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain either parameter (address or limit). It does not clarify that 'address' is the token address or that 'limit' controls the number of holders returned, so the description adds no value beyond the schema's raw names and types.

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 'Get holders of a token from Solscan' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('holders of a token') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_meta or get_token_price. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description only states the function and does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_token_meta, get_token_transfers) or any exclusions. There is no context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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