list_nft_collections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: it walks multiple sources ('kiosks plus direct-owned objects'), deduplicates, and returns a 'lightweight summary' with counts. It also mentions 'Backed by GraphQL' as an implementation detail. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 primary purpose in the first sentence and behavioral details in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 is complete for a read-only summary tool. It explains what the tool does, how it operates (walking kiosks and direct-owned objects), what the output contains (deduplicated collection types with counts), and is backed by GraphQL. Given the simple two-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and expected result.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (address and network). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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: 'Get a lightweight summary of NFT collections owned by a wallet.' It specifies the resource and action, and further clarifies scope by mentioning 'Walks all kiosks plus direct-owned objects and returns deduplicated collection types with counts,' distinguishing it from siblings like list_nfts and list_owned_objects.

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 a clear use case: obtaining a high-level NFT overview. It provides context by explaining it traverses kiosks and direct-owned objects and returns deduplicated collection types, which helps differentiate it from more detailed tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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