token_holders

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

The description explains the tool returns a list of addresses with balances and ownership percentages, and mentions pagination and historical data. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 four sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes all critical information without unnecessary detail. Each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (list of addresses with balances and percentages) and covers all key parameters and their constraints. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema, but the description adds value by grouping required vs optional, noting mutual exclusivity of blockHeight and date, providing max pageSize, and mentioning ENS/RNS/Lens/UD resolution for tokenAddress.

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 tool gets a paginated list of current or historical token holders for ERC20 or ERC721 tokens. It specifies required and optional parameters, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like token_balances by focusing on 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 lists required and optional parameters, indicating when to use historical data features (blockHeight or date). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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