Get top holders

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral value: a hard result cap of 50 and the fact that holder numbers are masked unless the 'view holder number' permission is held. That masking rule is exactly the kind of data-shaping caveat an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of describing return shape or the effect of grouping flags.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the cap, then the caveat. Nothing is padded and no sentence repeats another; 'Max 50' mildly duplicates the schema maximum but reads as a useful warning rather than 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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and three boolean flags that alter aggregation, the description is thin: it never says what a returned holder record contains or how grouping changes results. With annotations and an 86%-covered schema carrying much of the load, three sentences are adequate but leave clear gaps.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 50-item cap and hints at the permission context behind showHolderNumber, which the schema leaves undocumented, but it explains nothing about the holder-group parameters (includeHolderGroup, showGroupMembers) that materially change the response.

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 names a specific resource (top holders of securities) with a temporal qualifier (as of a date), which is materially more precise than the title alone. It does not differentiate from any sibling, though no sibling in the list appears to compete with holder data, so the risk of misfire is low.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is meant for holder lookups at a point in time, capped at 50. The permission note hints at a prerequisite for full data, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives for related data such as issuer or security listings.

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