3land Buy N F T

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'operation class write' and warns to confirm state before writes, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not detail undo implications or failure modes, but the pre-flight check guidance is valuable.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant phrases like '3.Land' multiple times and a sentence about SAP MCP context that, while useful, could be integrated more seamlessly. It front-loads the purpose but has some wordiness.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose, provides pre-write checks, and mentions a pairing condition for registry metadata. It lacks details on post-purchase outcomes, but output schema likely fills gaps. Overall, it is fairly complete for this complexity level.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (buyer, listingId) with descriptions (e.g., 'Solana public key (base58)'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further semantic value beyond confirming their use, so baseline 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 'Purchase an NFT from a 3.Land listing,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 3land_createCollection, 3land_mintAndList, etc., by focusing on the buy action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises to 'Confirm marketplace price, seller/buyer wallet, collection, and listing state before writes,' which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 3land_mintAndList for combined minting and listing, leaving some guidance missing.

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