fetchNftsOwnedByMultichainAddresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'spam filtering' but does not explain the filtering mechanics (e.g., excludeFilters, includeFilters, spamConfidenceLevel) or pagination (pageKey, pageSize) and metadata toggle. The schema covers these, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No unnecessary words; however, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning key features like pagination.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, pagination, filters) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits higher-level context such as pagination, metadata handling, and how to use spam filters. The schema helps but the agent lacks guidance on typical usage patterns.

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% (all parameters have detailed descriptions). The description adds 'with spam filtering' which hints at filter parameters but does not explain them beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Get'), resource ('NFTs owned by wallet addresses'), scope ('across multiple chains'), and feature ('with spam filtering'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetchTokensOwnedByMultichainAddresses' and 'getNFTsForOwner' by emphasizing multichain and spam filtering.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'fetchNftContractDataByMultichainAddress' or 'getNFTsForOwner'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.

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