Retrieve the current owner of a specific NFT by providing its collection contract ID and token ID; use it to verify ownership.
Get the current owner of a specific NFT.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenId | Yes | Token ID of the NFT | |
| contractId | Yes | NFT collection contract ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description bears full behavioral burden and says nothing about what is returned, whether the owner comes back as an address string, how a non-existent token or unowned NFT is handled, or whether this requires network access to a specific chain.
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 tight and front-loaded, but the appended 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is promotional noise that does not help call this tool and dilutes a two-line description.
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 simple two-parameter read with fully described schema and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits what the call returns and error/empty behavior for unmatched tokens, leaving real gaps for an agent.
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% (contractId described as 'NFT collection contract ID', tokenId as 'Token ID of the NFT'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond the schema baseline, making 3 correct.
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: 'Get the current owner of a specific NFT.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_nft_holdings (list holdings) and get_nft_metadata (metadata), though it never names those siblings.
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 use this versus get_nft_holdings, get_collection_info, or get_nft_history. The only 'tip' points to earning_opportunities, an unrelated sibling, which adds no routing value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.