hyre-whales

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns top holders with supply percentage and includes a cost of $0.003, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe error or edge-case behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the cost detail, making it efficient.

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 tool has one simple parameter and no annotations or output schema. The description covers the core functionality but omits details about response structure, pagination, or potential failure modes. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would improve 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 schema already documents the only parameter, mint, as 'Token mint address' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond referring to 'a token,' so it does not exceed the schema's baseline.

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 identifies the tool as returning whale/top holders for a given token, with percentage of supply. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hyre-token-snipers and hyre-wallet-intel by focusing on holder distribution. The verb is implied but coherent.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides no context for prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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