Ordiscan: getCollectionInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, caching, rate limits), but it does not contradict 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 concise: one sentence plus an example. Every word earns its place, and the example is immediately useful. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and good annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is acceptable per rules, but the description does not specify what 'info' includes, which is a minor gap.

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 single parameter 'slug' is described in the schema, but the tool description adds an example 'taproot-wizards', which helps clarify what constitutes a valid slug. This adds value beyond the schema's generic description.

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 action: 'Get the info for a given collection slug.' It provides a concrete example, 'taproot-wizards', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getCollectionInscriptions or getCollectionMarketInfo by focusing on general info retrieval.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear, but an agent might benefit from knowing, for example, that more specific info is available from sibling tools.

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