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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses live fetching from Alchemy (OpenSea + LooksRare) and staleness concerns, which covers the core behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or output format, leaving minor gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause serves a purpose—live data source, usage guidance, and address prerequisite. No filler or redundant wording.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, parameter prerequisite, and an alternative path. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds practical value beyond the schema by stating 'Needs the collection's CONTRACT ADDRESS' and suggesting find_collections as a fallback. This extra context helps agents correctly obtain the required 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 explicitly states 'LIVE floor price of an NFT collection' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'fetched right now from Alchemy' and contrasting with web search. It clearly conveys the tool's immediate-purpose scope.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for any current/right now floor or price question' and explicit when-not-to-use: 'NEVER answer a live number from web search'. It also names an alternative tool (find_collections) for obtaining the required contract address, which is actionable context.

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