getCollectionInfoFetch a Bitcoin Ordinals collection's metadata by its slug: name, description, supply, twitter, website, and image. Pair with getCollectionMarketInfo for floor/market data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Collection slug as indexed by Ordiscan (e.g. 'taproot-wizards', 'nodemonkes'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the list of returned fields but no additional behavioral caveats such as rate limits or auth requirements. It aligns with annotations without introducing new transparency details.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and output fields, while the second provides a useful pointer to a complementary tool. Every word earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter read-only fetch, the description covers the returned metadata fields and the companion tool for market data. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, no further details are necessary.
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 fully describes the sole parameter 'slug' with an explanation and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 function with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Bitcoin Ordinals collection's metadata'), and lists the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing getCollectionMarketInfo for floor/market data, making the scope unmistakable.
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 explicit guidance by naming getCollectionMarketInfo as the companion tool for floor/market data. This implies that getCollectionInfo is for static metadata, giving the agent a clear when-not-to-use signal and a direct alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.