Stamp Holders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior (despite page/limit parameters), error handling, required permissions, or the return format beyond the fields listed. The second sentence about supply is domain context, not tool behavior.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supplementary context in the second. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. The second sentence, while useful domain info, could be trimmed without losing essential functionality.

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 tool with a required parameter and pagination options, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the stamp_id, what the output schema entails, or how pagination works. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the return format gap, but input parameter guidance is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain that stamp_id is required, or what page and limit control. No parameter meanings are conveyed beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 resource (stamp holders) and the information returned (address, amount held, percentage of supply). The verb is implied but evident from 'Who holds'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet_stamps and src20_holders by focusing on a single stamp's holder distribution, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage: to find who holds a stamp. It provides domain context about supply (art stamps vs. SRC-721/editioned) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_stamp or wallet_stamps, nor when not to use it.

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