bags_get_creators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state 'Free read-only tier,' which usefully signals safety and lack of mutation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, ordering details, or any rate-limit constraints.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the access-tier note. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with only two optional and fully described parameters, so the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and ambiguous siblings, the description could have explained expected return values or distinguished itself from bags_get_token_creators.

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%, so the parameter names and descriptions already document limit and offset clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline score.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query top creators by lifetime fees on Bags.' This differentiates it reasonably from sibling tools like bags_get_token_creators, though it does not explicitly name that alternative. The 'read-only tier' note adds useful scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. It implies a use case—retrieving top creators by fees—but does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool.

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