get_nft_holdings

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

With zero annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but never says whether it supports pagination semantics, what happens when address is omitted beyond the schema note, or whether the call errors on an invalid address. It also says nothing about the shape of what comes back.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the second sentence is a promotional tip unrelated to invoking this tool, so not every sentence 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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should tell an agent what a result entry looks like (token IDs? contract? metadata?) and whether results are paginated in practice. It leaves that entirely unaddressed.

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 100%, so limit, offset, address, and contractId are all documented inline. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., default page size behavior across pages, or how contractId filtering interacts with limit) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all NFTs owned by an address.' That clearly separates it from get_nft_owner (single-NFT owner lookup) and get_nft_metadata, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 on when to reach for this versus get_nft_owner, list_user_tokens, get_inscriptions_by_address, or get_ordinal_utxos. The only routing advice is a cross-sell tip pointing at earning_opportunities, which is not a functional alternative for listing NFTs.

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