Get Token Holders

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by stating it requires an API key and is a [PRO] feature, plus clarifies it returns specific data (balances and percentages). No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned (top holders with balances and percentages) and notes the API key requirement. It could mention the default limit behavior, but this is covered in the schema. Overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (address and limit). The description does not add any extra meaning about parameters but does not need to, as the schema fully documents them. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns 'Top holders' with 'balances and ownership percentages' for a PulseChain token, specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'token holders'. It adds context with the [PRO] marker and API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-holder-rank or get-holder-leagues, which also deal with holders.

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 mentions the API key requirement but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get-holder-rank). It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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