token_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose cost and payment method, and mentions a historical snapshot option, but it also references passing an 'analysis' parameter that is not in the schema, which is misleading. It lacks details on authentication, response format, or error handling, making the behavior 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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main content, but it includes a redundant and misleading mention of 'analysis' that adds no value. The price line is useful but could be integrated better. Overall, it's compact but not optimally efficient due to the phantom parameter.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main content but misses critical operational details: no mention of authentication requirements, response format, error handling, or rate limits. The phantom 'analysis' parameter further reduces completeness and could cause incorrect usage.

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 has only 'mint' with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. However, the description introduces a non-existent 'analysis' parameter, which actively misleads the agent about how to call the tool. It adds no value beyond the schema for 'mint' and creates confusion.

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 tool provides a 'full holder breakdown' and enumerates specific components (networks, ownership %, top holders, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like token_safety or token_holder_graph through its content, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a 5.

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 gives context about what it returns but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the content alone.

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