arc72_owner_of

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the function, not its behavior—what it returns, whether it reverts for nonexistent tokens, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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—a single fragment. It is easy to parse and not bloated, but it may be too terse to stand alone without schema or external knowledge. Still, for conciseness, it earns a strong score.

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?

The tool has three parameters and a well-defined schema, but the description lacks context about the return value or typical use case. No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the agent should expect from the call, which it does not. Incomplete for a useful tool.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (appId, network, tokenId), with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond referencing tokenId, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'ARC-72 ownerOf(tokenId)' clearly identifies the standard function being invoked and implies the purpose of retrieving the owner of a token. It distinguishes from siblings like balance_of or get_approved, but is terse and does not explicitly state 'get the owner address'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as arc72_balance_of or arc72_get_approved. The description does not explain the context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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