nft_for_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional parameters that affect behavior (filtering spam, excluding metadata, uncached fetching) and notes it returns 'complete details including metadata'. However, it does not specify pagination, data limits, or potential performance implications for wallets with many NFTs.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second lists parameters and return. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the main function and parameter effects. However, it lacks details on return structure (e.g., format of NFT details), pagination, and any limits on result size. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent needing to use the output effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates required and optional parameters similarly to the schema descriptions, adding only the note that walletAddress can be ENS/domain and that return includes metadata. It does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves NFTs (ERC721/ERC1155) held by an address, with a specific verb 'render' and resource 'NFTs'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nft_check_ownership by focusing on all NFTs for an address rather than ownership checks for specific 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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists required and optional parameters without explaining scenarios where nft_check_ownership or nft_check_ownership_token_id would be more appropriate. No explicit exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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