debank_get_token_holders

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it returns top holders, supports pagination with limit and offset parameters, and defines maximum values (limit 100, offset 10000). However, it does not cover rate limits, authentication, or potential errors. Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden.

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 well-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples). It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise by combining some points, but overall structure is effective.

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 is complete for a paginated data retrieval tool. It explains purpose, all parameters with examples, return format with a sample object, and includes usage examples. The presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section) further supports completeness.

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?

The description extensively adds meaning to each parameter beyond the input schema: chain_id with examples ('eth', 'bsc', 'polygon'), token_id with requirement to start with '0x', and limit/offset with defaults and maximums. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 that the tool retrieves top holders of a specific token from DeBank, with explicit mention of analyzing token distribution and whale activity. It distinguishes itself from other debank tools (e.g., account units, chains, pools) by focusing on token holders.

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 provides example calls but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention alternative tools for related queries like token info or user balances.

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