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

Annotations already convey read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds valuable operational behavior beyond that: price per call, x-credit-token auth, free daily call, and no wallet/API key required. It also discloses marketplace coverage limits. This is useful contextual transparency without contradicting 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the operational details (coverage, auth, cost) are compactly packed. Some redundancy exists between 'Pass the collection contract address' and 'Required input: contract', but overall every sentence carries the right kind of 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?

With only one paramater, a rich annotation set, and an output schema present, the description provdes everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: address required, Base chain, marketplace coverage, cost, auth mechanism, and free tier. There are no missing operational prerequisites.

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 covers 100% of the single paramater ('Collection contract address'), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the contract is on Base and is for an NFT collection, plus 'Pass the collection contract address' reinforces the exact parameter usage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Live floor price for a Base NFT collection', disambiguated by marketplace source (OpenSea/LooksRare) and Alchemy. This clearly separates it from the many sibling tools, which are mostly wallet, token, or security focused.

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?

Gives clear context: 'For agents tracking NFT markets', states the required input (contract), and notes a key limitation ('Coverage is limited to marketplace-listed collections'). It does not name an explicit when-not alternative, but no direct sibling provides the same function.

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