nft_check_ownership

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. 'Check who owns' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the schema identifies the required inputs. However, it does not disclose the exact return format (e.g., owner address), potential edge cases (e.g., burned tokens), or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading, earning a 3.

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 short sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, front-loaded with the key verb 'Check', and every word earns its place.

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 is simple, with two well-described parameters and no output schema. The description is sufficient to understand what it does, but it lacks comparison with similar sibling tools and does not clarify what the response will contain. Given the abundance of NFT-related siblings, this minimal context is barely adequate, hence a 3.

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% description coverage: 'tokenId' is described as 'Token ID' and 'contractAddress' as 'NFT contract address'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, 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 the tool's function: 'Check who owns a specific NFT token' – a specific verb ('check') plus resource ('ownership' of an NFT token). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like nft_get_owned_tokens or vechainstats_get_nft_holders, which could also provide ownership-related information, so it misses the full mark for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any unique use case, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large sibling list with similar NFT tools, the lack of usage context makes it hard for an agent to decide if this is the right tool for a given task.

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