wallet_token_holder_analysis

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Analyze' without stating whether it is read-only, what data it returns, whether pagination exists, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, providing only a minimal phrase that does not fully capture the tool's purpose or behavior. It is not efficiently informative.

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 has no output schema and two parameters, the description should explain what the analysis produces (e.g., top holders, percentage distribution) or provide context on its scope. It fails to do so, and with many similar sibling tools, the context is incomplete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (tokenAddress and chain) with types and descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters affect the analysis, 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?

The description 'Analyze holder distribution for a token' clearly states the action (analyze) and the resource (holder distribution of a token). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_holder_distribution or get_token_holder_count, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_holder_distribution or get_token_holder_count. The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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