runes_get_holders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral detail: the return payload contents, the descending balance sort order, and pagination support. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown rune, data freshness/indexing, or any rate limits, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose and payload, and the sort order is stated up front. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is a cross-sell that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, costing a bit of tightness.

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?

For a simple read tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, ordering, and pagination. Only edge-case behavior (invalid rune, empty results) is left unaddressed, which is minor for this complexity level.

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 100% — rune name/ID formats, the 1-60 limit with default 20, and offset are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond a generic mention of pagination, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the list of holders for a specific Bitcoin Rune') and immediately clarifies the payload (addresses plus rune balances). It is clearly distinguishable from balance-oriented siblings such as get_rune_balances or get_token_holders by virtue of the 'holders' framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating a rune's holders. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the closely related runes_get_address_balances or runes_get_activity. The closing tip pushes an unrelated follow-up (earning_opportunities) rather than clarifying selection criteria.

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