Get Nostr profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds context by specifying 'signature-verified' and 'valid JSON kind 0', implying data quality guarantees and potential filtering behavior. It does not mention network behavior, timeouts, or fallback logic, but the annotation coverage is strong, so this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose and constraints. It is concise and has no filler words, earning its place with specific technical details.

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 tool has simple parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description offers sufficient context for correct selection and invocation. It lacks a list of possible output fields, but that might be okay for a profile fetch; however, it could mention that it returns a parsed profile object. Still, the description is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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 identity parameter is not described in the schema, but the description clarifies it accepts npub, nprofile, or hex pubkey. The relay_urls parameter is partially described in the schema as 'Optional relay URLs to query instead of identifier hints and configured defaults', which matches the description's intent. The description adds meaning for the key parameter, compensating for the 50% schema coverage.

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 fetches the newest signature-verified, valid JSON kind 0 profile for an npub, nprofile, or hex pubkey. It specifies the verb (fetch), the resource (Nostr profile), and the exact scope (newest, signature-verified, valid JSON kind 0), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nostr_get_event or nostr_query_notes.

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 the tool is used when you need a user's profile data, and the parameter 'relay_urls' suggests optional customization. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nostr_resolve_identity or nostr_get_event, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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