Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gexno-web3

gexno-web3

by JanzenChen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

lookup_nft

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve NFT metadata for a contract and tokenId to retrieve name, description, image URL, IPFS gateway link, and raw JSON for ERC-721 and ERC-1155 tokens.

Instructions

Resolve NFT metadata for a contract + tokenId: name, description, image HTTP URL, IPFS gateway link, and raw metadata JSON. Supports ERC-721 and ERC-1155. Read-only.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tokenId": "1",
      "contract": "0xBC4CA0EdA7647A8aB7C2061c2E118A18a936f13D"
    },
    "name": "lookup_nft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenIdYesDecimal token id
contractYesContract address (0x + 40 hex)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant rather than additive. The genuinely useful disclosure is the returned field set and the ERC-721/1155 coverage; nothing is said about external network resolution, gateway fallbacks, or behavior when metadata is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and inputs, then the return payload, then the standards constraint — a sensible ordering in two short sentences. The trailing 'Read-only' earns little because the annotations already say it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return contract by listing the five fields, and it flags supported token standards. Missing are failure modes (unresolved token, non-NFT contract) and whether IPFS resolution is attempted on-chain or via gateway, which matter for an openWorldHint tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with patterns and type unions documenting both contract (0x + 40 hex) and tokenId (decimal string or non-negative integer), plus an example. The description only restates the parameter names in the phrasing 'contract + tokenId' and adds no format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve NFT metadata for a contract + tokenId') and enumerates exactly what comes back: name, description, image HTTP URL, IPFS gateway link, and raw metadata JSON. The contract+tokenId keying makes it trivially distinguishable from lookup_wallet.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Declares the applicable token standards ('Supports ERC-721 and ERC-1155'), which tells the agent when the tool is usable and implicitly when it is not. It never names the sibling lookup_wallet or an alternative path, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools