get_token_holder_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result is an estimate and that the method relies on transfer events, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain accuracy limitations, the effect of blockRange, or whether the operation is read-only (though that's likely assumed). The description offers some insight but lacks depth expected for a heuristic tool.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and method. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich input schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It communicates the core function without needing to explain return values since the name and description imply the output. However, it could benefit from mentioning that blockRange affects estimation accuracy or noting that the count is approximate, but the word 'estimate' already covers that. Overall, it's adequate for a straightforward read-oriented 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (network, blockRange, tokenAddress) having a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool estimates token holder count and explains the method (analyzing transfer events). It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('token holder count'), making its purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_holder_distribution, so it misses the top score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases. There is no mention of when estimates are appropriate or how blockRange affects results. This is a minimal description that leaves usage decisions to the agent.

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