track_whales

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new operational context not in any structured field: a 0.005 USDC x402 micropayment on Base, and the crucial data limitation that results are a sample rather than a full holder distribution.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by limitations and cost. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of characterizing the return (sampled top holders, supply share) and flags what it deliberately omits, which is what an agent needs to judge fitness. It could say slightly more about the shape or size of the sample, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents chain and token formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading a GoPlus sample of top ERC-20 holders plus reported supply share. It is clearly distinct from siblings like scan_token or profile_wallet, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to route against.

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 exclusion clause ('full distribution, Gini, and recent transfer history are unavailable') usefully bounds expectations, and the cost note implies a deliberate-call context. However, it never says when to prefer this over scan_token or profile_wallet for holder analysis.

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