arc72_token_uri

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output is a UTF-8 string and that null bytes are stripped by ulujs, which is useful. However, it omits any error behavior, network requirements, or what the URI string represents in practice.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential function and output type without any redundancy. Every part adds value.

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 description provides enough to know the return type (UTF-8 string) and the core operation, but it lacks details on why to use this over sibling metadata tools, possible error conditions, or how the URI relates to on-chain metadata. For a simple getter with no output schema, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (network, appId, tokenId) with clear meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing tokenId in the function signature, so the baseline 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 clearly states it retrieves the ARC-72 tokenURI for a given tokenId, returning it as a UTF-8 string. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arc72_owner_of or arc72_balance_of, and the method name 'tokenURI' is a specific action on the token resource.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arc72_get_metadata, which may be more appropriate for broader metadata. The description does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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