get_market_holders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, or what format the results will be in. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on what information is shown. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key information about the resource being accessed.

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 read-only tool with good schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or how the 'top holders' are determined (e.g., by position size, by recent activity). The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more context about what to expect from the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'holders' or 'positions' mean in the Polymarket context, nor does it provide examples or additional context for the condition_id parameter.

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's purpose: 'Get top holders/positions for a Polymarket market. Shows the largest positions and who holds them.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('top holders/positions'), and scope ('Polymarket market'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market' or 'get_market_trades' which might provide different market data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_market' (which might provide general market info) or 'get_market_trades' (which might show trading activity), leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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