Skip to main content
Glama

Gexno Web3

by io.github.JanzenChen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lookup_nft

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve NFT metadata for a contract + tokenId: name, description, image HTTP URL, IPFS gateway link, and raw metadata JSON. Supports ERC-721 tokenURI and ERC-1155 uri. Use when the user asks for NFT metadata, token image, or to parse IPFS NFT JSON. tokenId must be a decimal string (or integer). Read-only lookup with no side effects. Example: lookup_nft {"contract":"0xBC4CA0EdA7647A8aB7C2061c2E118A18a936f13D","tokenId":"1"} returns the Bored Ape #1 metadata with an erc721 standard marker and imageHttp URL.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenIdYesToken ID as decimal string or non-negative integer
contractYesNFT contract address (0x-prefixed, 40 hex chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "contract": "0xBC4CA0EdA7647A8aB7C2061c2E118A18a936f13D",
+    "tokenId": "1"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / contract / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "0xBC4CA0EdA7647A8aB7C2061c2E118A18a936f13D"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / tokenId / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "1",
+  1
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by naming the supported token standards, the returned metadata fields, and an example of expected output, though it does not mention failure modes or gateway/rate-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is front-loaded with the core action and return fields, and the example is useful. A few sentences repeat schema or annotation details, such as the tokenId format and read-only nature, but the description remains compact and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, which standards are supported, how tokenId may be formatted, and includes a concrete example. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so no critical information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that tokenId must be a decimal string or integer and gives a concrete contract+tokenId example, but it adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema and its examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: resolve NFT metadata for a contract and tokenId. It lists the returned fields and the supported standards (ERC-721 tokenURI and ERC-1155 uri), making the tool clearly distinct from the only sibling, lookup_wallet.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit use cases: when the user asks for NFT metadata, token image, or IPFS NFT JSON parsing. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the sibling lookup_wallet does not overlap, so the missing exclusion is minor.

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

All Gexno Web3 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources