get_nft_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The phrase 'if available' hints at partial data availability but doesn't explain failure modes.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It front-loads the main action ('Get detailed information'), specifies the resource type, and lists key data points without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste.

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 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is retrieved. However, it lacks details about the return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints that would be important for an AI agent to use this tool effectively. The absence of annotations and output schema creates gaps that the description doesn't fully address.

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%, providing good documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which already explains network defaults, token address examples, and token ID format). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific NFT (ERC721 token)'), with specific examples of what information is included (collection name, symbol, token URI, current owner). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_nft_balance (which checks ownership quantity) and get_erc1155_token_uri (which handles a different token standard).

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 through the phrase 'if available' for current owner information, suggesting this tool retrieves metadata rather than performing actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like check_nft_ownership (which verifies ownership) or get_erc1155_token_uri (for ERC1155 tokens), leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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