get_account_nft_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get' (suggesting a read operation) but does not mention pagination, ordering, potential rate limits, or what exactly constitutes 'activities'. The description is too brief to provide meaningful transparency.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It wastes no words, though it could have used the brevity to include additional useful context without becoming verbose.

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 relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It fails to explain what NFT activities are included (e.g., transfers, sales, mints), how the limit parameter works, or any requirements like account type. Given the lack of annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'address' or 'limit' at all. While these names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NFT activities of a Solana account from Solscan'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_account_nfts or get_account_transfers, relying on the term 'activities' to imply a feed of events.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_nfts or get_account_transfers. The description simply states what it does without any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name.

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