explorer_get_nft_transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context by noting that transfers from both ERC-721 and ERC-1155 are 'merged and sorted by time', which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 4 reflects the additive value.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and key characteristics, with zero redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 schema covers parameters and annotations cover the read-only/open-world behavior, the description provides sufficient context for tool selection. It explains the merging and sorting behavior, which is important. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward nature of the tool, so a score of 4 reflects that it is near-complete without needing to describe return formats.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters. The description does not add parameter-level information beyond the schema; it only refers to 'an address' which maps to the 'address' parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'NFT transfer history', and specifies both ERC-721 and ERC-1155 for an address. It distinguishes from related tools like explorer_get_token_transfers (ERC-20) and explorer_get_nft_inventory (NFT ownership) by specifying 'transfer history' and the token standards.

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: it is for retrieving NFT transfer history for an address, with no ambiguity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the inclusion of token standards effectively implies when to use this tool (for NFT transfers) versus other transfer/list tools.

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