Holders, labels and where the float sits for one asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it explains null label behavior, unknown address probing, the difference between live and as-of-block shares, the 24-hour job cadence, chain-head readiness, and the fact that small holders make floatPct a floor. This gives an agent the operational context annotations would otherwise provide.

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 long but densely informative; every sentence covers a distinct semantic point that matters because there is no output schema. It is front-loaded with the core question, though a bulleted or segmented layout would improve scanability.

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?

It covers nearly all output semantics, including null conditions, base units, share numerators, and timing. The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter and the lack of an explicit top-level shape, which are important for correct invocation without an output schema.

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?

Symbol is documented in the schema and echoed by 'ticker', but the optional limit parameter has no semantic explanation anywhere; the description never says what limit controls. With only 50% schema coverage, the prose should compensate, and it does not.

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 opening sentence states exactly what the tool returns: how much of a ticker is in investor hands, where the rest sits, and who holds it in descending order. It is clearly scoped to one asset and distinct from sibling resource-specific tools, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

No alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned. The description strongly implies its use for holder and float concentration inquiries and gives readiness timing, but doesn't explicitly compare with siblings like pools or bridge.

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