Holder distribution + open interest for a market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations (no cost of chain probing, no aggregation/caching behavior, no failure modes), so it is adequate rather than additive.

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?

A single sentence with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler; every clause maps to a returned metric. It is efficient, though the compressed colon-list format is more enumeration than structured guidance.

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 a full output schema, 100% parameter description coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough for an agent to call this read-only analytics tool correctly. The remaining gap is usage/routing context, which is a sibling-selection concern rather than a calling concern.

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% and both parameters (address, chainId, including the 'probes enabled chains if omitted' fallback) are documented in the schema. The description's only extra hint is 'per outcome' grouping, which is marginal, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (market holder distribution) and enumerates exactly what is returned: distinct holders, verified-human count, whale count, and total shares per outcome (open interest). This distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like get_market_state or get_market_depth by content, but it never names an alternative, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance; the agent must infer relevance purely from the metric list. No prerequisites are stated either (e.g., that chainId probing may be needed), so the definition leaves selection entirely to inference.

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