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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's logic (eligibility requires 1+ NFT) and gives practical context about zero-reward staking. However, it doesn't detail the exact return format or whether the operation is read-only, though the 'get' prefix implies that.

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-loads the core output (count, tiers, verdict), and uses the second sentence for usage guidance. Every word earns its place 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively covers purpose, key outputs, and the critical usage context. It provides enough details for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the practical implication of zero NFT holdings.

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 already describes the address parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referring to 'wallet' — no additional format, constraints, or behavioral nuances for the parameter are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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: returning MEGACHADNFT count, boost tier (1+/10+/25+), and staking-reward eligibility verdict. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning staking eligibility, which is unique among the get_* tools.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool BEFORE building any stake transaction, with a clear rationale: a wallet with 0 NFTs accrues 0 rewards even when staked. This provides direct guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives like build_staking_tx.

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