get_token_holders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never states the ranking/ordering of 'top' holders, that results are paginated, whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), or any rate-limit/auth constraints. The upstream API endpoint reference adds provenance but not behavioral context.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded. The second sentence (KaiaScan endpoint) is marginally useful for provenance but does not help an agent decide or invoke, so it is mild filler rather than a defect.

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 and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the return shape (ranked holder addresses with balances, pagination semantics). It is adequate to identify the tool but leaves an agent guessing about the result structure.

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 page, size, network, and contractAddress are already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint path echoing contractAddress, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Get top holders of a fungible token.' This is clearly distinct from sibling reads like get_token_transfers, get_token_info, or get_token_allowance. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource noun alone disambiguates it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many token-related siblings. The agent must infer that this is the tool for holder distribution queries rather than, say, transfer history.

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