holder_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does add useful context: the call costs $0.15, payment is via USDC on Solana through x402, and it summarizes the returned breakdown. However, the instruction to 'Pass `analysis`' is vague and references a parameter not present in the schema, leaving behavior partially unclear.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core breakdown, then pricing. The historical snapshot sentence is the only weak part because it does not align with the schema, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 one-parameter tool, the description provides enough to attempt a call: the mint address, the expected breakdown content, and the price/payment mechanism. But there is no output schema and the optional `analysis` behavior is underspecified, leaving a meaningful completeness gap.

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?

The schema already documents `mint` at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a reference to a non-existent `analysis` parameter, which actively confuses the parameter model instead of enriching it.

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 a holder-analysis purpose: full holder breakdown with networks, individual holders, and exchange distribution. It also identifies the underlying endpoint via the alias note. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling `token_details` tool, so the separation is imperfect.

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 guidance on when to use `holder_analysis` versus alternatives like `token_details` or `token_holder_graph`. The alias note is informational but does not help an agent choose between siblings, and no exclusions or preferred contexts are provided.

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