ORA · ORUM

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's scope (65 pieces, owner, links) and mentions it is free. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor discuss side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The content is transparent, but behavioral traits are partially disclosed.

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 the core purpose. It is concise, though the word 'gratuito' is repeated. Each part contributes information, earning 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it specifies the collection, blockchain, date, and return elements (owner, links). It could clarify output format or whether it returns a list, but for a simple tool it is reasonably complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining the tool returns a catalog with specific content (owner, links, collection details). This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 it is a catalog of 65 specific NFT pieces, with owner and direct links. The verb 'catalogo' and specific details (Ethereum, August 2021) make purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nft_dedicar (dedicate) by being purely informational.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Usage is implied (if you need catalog info for 0001sensations, use this), but no when-not or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses on-chain verification before publishing and the permanent nature of the action, but does not describe failure cases, side effects, or detailed behavior (e.g., what happens if verification fails).

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, requirements, verification, and cost. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers many aspects (condition, verification, required parameters, cost) but lacks explanation of return values or success/failure behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what the tool returns or confirms.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description reiterates that token_id, wallet, and nome are required, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A 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 links a name to an NFT forever, with on-chain verification. It distinguishes from siblings like nft_catalogo (listing) and nft_dedicar_simbolica (likely symbolic) by specifying ownership requirement and permanent linking.

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 indicates when to use ('Se ja possuis o NFT') and mentions the verification step, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus similar ones.

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

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: no ownership transfer, payment of 0.618 USDC via x402, and optional tx_hash for instructions. However, it lacks details on reversibility, authorization needs, or what happens after payment. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but is incomplete.

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 a single paragraph of three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool involves a financial transaction and no output schema, the description covers the essential: purpose, payment details, optional parameter behavior. It lacks details on the blockchain, post-payment steps, or potential side effects, but is sufficient for a symbolic action.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces the purpose. No additional context or constraints are provided.

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: symbolic dedication of a free NFT without ownership transfer, paying directly to the artist. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nft_dedicar by explicitly saying 'sem precisares de possuir o NFT' and 'nao transfere a posse'.

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 implies when to use (when you don't need ownership), but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. The context of sibling tools aids understanding, but the guidance is implicit.

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

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

Sem anotações, a descrição carrega todo o peso. Afirma ser 'Consulta' e 'Gratuito', mas não revela comportamentos como validação de código, limites de taxa ou erros. Mínimo contexto comportamental.

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?

Duas frases diretas, sem excesso de palavras. Estrutura eficiente.

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?

Ferramenta simples com 1 parâmetro e sem schema de saída. A descrição informa o propósito e requisito, mas não menciona formato de retorno ou tratamento de erros. Adequado com lacunas.

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?

Esquema cobre 100% do parâmetro com descrição. A descrição apenas repete 'Requer code', não adicionando significado além do schema. Baseline 3 aplica-se.

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?

Descreve claramente a ação (consulta) e o recurso (saldo pendente e pago de comissões), distinguindo-se dos irmãos (NFT, registo).

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?

Menciona 'Requer code' como pré-requisito, mas não fornece orientação sobre quando usar vs alternativas. Contexto implícito é suficiente dado os irmãos são de domínio diferente.

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

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

The description states it is free and requires an address, but does not disclose side effects, success/error behavior, or whether it is a write operation. More critically, it says 'Requer address' implying the parameter is required, while the input schema does not mark it as required, creating a contradiction that could mislead an agent.

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 very concise with three short sentences that cover purpose, parameter meaning, and cost. There is no fluff or redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and cost. However, it lacks information about the result of registration (e.g., confirmation, errors) and the contradiction regarding the required parameter reduces completeness. An agent may be uncertain about what to expect after invocation.

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 parameter has 100% schema description, and the tool description adds value by clarifying that the address serves as the referral code ('O codigo e o teu proprio endereco Base') and that it is required. This additional context goes beyond the schema's description of the address format.

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 it is a self-registration in the partner/referral program with a 10% commission. The verb 'Auto-registo' and the mention of 'programa de parceiros/referral' specify exactly what the tool does, and it is distinct from siblings like 'parceiro_estado' which likely checks partner status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for self-registration using one's own Base address. It implies that this is the appropriate tool for initial registration, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though sibling tools are different enough.

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