collection_statsGet real-time NFT collection stats including minted count, supply, free claims remaining, current wave, price in USDC, and mint pause status.
Read live collection stats from PowMintNFTv3: totalMinted, maxSupply, freeClaims, claimsLeft, claimedCount, currentWave, currentPrice (USDC human units) and mintPaused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is a read and that stats are 'live', which are useful behavioral clues. However, it does not mention side effects, latency, authentication needs, or what happens during a paused mint, so some transparency gaps remain.
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 a single well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the returned fields compactly. Every element earns its place; there is no filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: the contract source and the complete list of returned values. It could be more complete by specifying value types or units for fields other than currentPrice, but the low complexity makes this adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds value by naming the concrete statistics returned, including a unit clarification for currentPrice (USDC human units).
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read live collection stats from PowMintNFTv3') and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like price_info, which appears to focus on pricing, and get_token, which likely returns token-level data.
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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs current collection-wide minting statistics. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related but different data, such as per-token details or craft information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.