nft_ownersOwners of a contract/token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | ||
| tokenId | No | ||
| contract | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owners | No | Array of owner addresses | |
| pageKey | No | Pagination key for next page |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, response size limits, or what 'owners' means (e.g., does it include all owners or just current?). It provides zero value beyond the annotations.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word is generic and does not add meaningful information. It does not front-load key details or structure the response in any helpful way.
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 tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention what the output contains or how it is structured. It is also missing any context about tokenId vs. contract scope, chain support, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is completely inadequate for a tool that needs to be selected among many similar NFT-related tools.
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 has three parameters (chain, tokenId, contract) with zero description coverage. The description only hints that 'contract/token' are involved, which weakly maps to contract and tokenId, but it does not explain the role of chain, the requiredness of contract, or how tokenId filters results. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Owners of a contract/token' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without a specific verb or clear action. It gives some context that this relates to NFT ownership, but it does not distinguish from siblings like nfts_owned or nfts_for_collection, nor does it clarify whether it returns current owners, historical owners, or a count.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that tokenId narrows to a specific token, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is entirely silent on usage context.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently described as identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve question-answering/research, and the six Polymarket tools heavily overlap in finding and evaluating trading edges. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent could easily route to the wrong variant.
The set mixes conventions: Pipeworx tools mostly use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but memory tools are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and the Ethereum tools are inconsistent (nft_metadata vs nfts_owned vs nft_owners, token_balances vs token_allowance). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the surface harder to predict.
At 40 tools, the server is oversized for the apparent core purpose of an Alchemy Ethereum interface. There is also significant redundancy: multiple ask/deep-research entry points and a dense suite of Polymarket analysis tools add bulk that could be consolidated.
The Ethereum side is mostly read-only convenience wrappers (NFTs, tokens, asset transfers) plus a generic eth_call catch-all, but lacks dedicated transaction sending, block/transaction detail, logs, or ENS conveniences. The rest of the tool surface is a sprawling collection of unrelated data-research, memory, and subscription features, making the overall implied domain incoherent and likely to leave obvious gaps for users expecting a focused Ethereum server.