Smart holders (extraction-index cross-ref)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds traits the annotations cannot: a $0.05 USDC payment on Base, the underlying data sources, the 4,000+ wallet percentile basis, and an explicit warning that the signal is directionally ambiguous. It stops short of describing result shape or size limits, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core subject ('wallets in this token's notable holder set') is front-loaded. The first sentence is dense with parentheticals and em-dash asides, which slightly slows parsing but each clause carries real information (sources, percentile basis, identity enrichment, cost).

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it enumerates extraction history with percentile rank, deployer track records, and ENS/Farcaster identity. Cost and the signal's ambiguity are disclosed. Missing only mechanics an agent might want — result count, ordering, or whether empty results are possible.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('token contract address (0x…) on Robinhood Chain'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or chain-validation detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 states a concrete resource (wallets in this token's notable holder set) cross-referenced against a specific dataset (off-market extraction history and deployer track records), which is far more specific than a plain holders tool. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like robinx_token or robinx_callers by naming the extraction-index and deployer cross-ref, but it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for vetting a token's holder base for insider/experienced-wallet signals. The closing caveat ('strong signal, ambiguous direction... not a buy call') is interpretive guidance, not routing guidance — no when-not-to-use or explicit 'use X instead' for plain holder lists.

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