nft_scan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries transparency burden. It discloses 'best-effort' nature, cost, and that it returns status and notes, implying read-only. However, it does not explicitly state no side effects or required permissions.

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 front-load key information: anomaly scan for NFT collections, detections, return content, and cost/chain context. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return type ('source status plus coverage notes') and detection types, giving adequate high-level context. However, lacks detail on output format or behavior across chains beyond Base mainnet cost.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds 'Pass a contract address' confirming the token parameter and mentions cost on Base mainnet, but does not elaborate beyond schema for chain or window.

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 tool performs an anomaly scan for NFT collections, specifically detecting sweep accumulation, wash trading, and mint surges. It distinguishes from sibling tools like anomaly_scan (generic) by specifying NFT focus.

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 explains to pass a contract address and mentions cost on Base mainnet, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. It implies NFT anomaly detection but lacks exclusions or comparison to other scan tools.

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