evm_gettopnftcollectionsbymarketcap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the Ethereum limitation, which is useful context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'top' means (e.g., number of results, sorting criteria). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 core purpose and followed by a key limitation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple query tool. It covers the purpose and a key limitation, but without annotations or output details, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or result format. This is adequate but leaves room for improvement in transparency.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it does include the Ethereum constraint, which slightly enhances context beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, but the added constraint justifies a 4.

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 action ('Get top NFT collections') and the resource ('by their current market cap'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evm_gethottestnftcollectionsbytradingvolume' by focusing on market cap rather than trading volume, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage when market cap ranking is needed, and the limitation 'Currently only supports Ethereum' provides some context for when not to use it (e.g., for other blockchains). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar tools like 'evm_gettopcryptocurrenciesbymarketcap' or 'evm_gettoperc20tokensbymarketcap'.

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