debank_get_user_nfts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains default behavior (is_all=False, so only valuable NFTs), pagination (limit, offset), and return structure. No contradictions are present.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise (about 120 words) and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers necessary details for a list endpoint: parameters, return structure, and examples. It lacks error handling or prerequisites, but given the presence of an output schema, the return description is adequate.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and constraints (e.g., limit max 500, chain_id optional). Examples further illustrate usage.

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 'Get user's NFT holdings from DeBank.' This is a specific verb-resource combination, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like debank_get_user_tokens which deals with fungible tokens.

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?

Examples show usage for all chains, specific chain, and pagination, indicating appropriate contexts. However, the description does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like debank_get_user_tokens, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over similar tools.

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