get_holder_distribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the analytical purpose and does not disclose return format, side effects (e.g., read-only vs. state-changing), or any network-specific behavior. This is minimal and leaves significant uncertainty.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. This is an appropriate size for a tool with a well-defined purpose.

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 must compensate for missing contextual information. It only provides a high-level purpose and leaves unclear what the result looks like (risk score, list of holders, etc.), how concentration risk is calculated, and any edge cases. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret the tool.

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% – all three parameters have descriptive text in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' with a clear resource ('token holder distribution') and explicitly states the analytical goal ('concentration risks'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_token_holder_count (count only) and wallet_token_holder_analysis (wallet-level analysis), though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is a standalone purpose statement without usage direction, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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