get_nft_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a count, not token IDs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format details beyond 'count'.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the complete purpose and scope. The second sentence adds crucial clarification about what's returned. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information not obvious from the tool name alone.

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 read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and return clarification. However, it lacks behavioral context about safety, performance, or error handling that would be helpful given the absence of annotations. The description is complete enough for basic usage but has gaps in operational transparency.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%).

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 specific action ('Get the total number of NFTs owned') with the resource ('by an address from a specific collection'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_erc1155_balance (which handles ERC1155 tokens) and check_nft_ownership (which verifies ownership of specific tokens). It explicitly clarifies it returns count, not token IDs.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'from a specific collection' and clarifying it returns count, not token IDs, which helps differentiate from get_erc1155_balance. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like check_nft_ownership for verifying specific token ownership or get_nft_info for collection metadata.

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