nostr_fetch_profile

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 effectively describes the tool's purpose and adds critical context: it requires payment ('Price: 5 sat'), which implies a transactional behavior not obvious from the schema. However, it doesn't detail error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond payment.

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 and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: the first sentence defines the tool's purpose and inputs, and the second sentence adds crucial payment information. There is zero wasted text.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (fetch operation with payment), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and payment requirement but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances like what happens if payment fails. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the pubkey is required and mentioning payment context, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Fetch a Nostr profile'), identifies the resource type ('kind 0'), and specifies the input methods ('by npub or hex pubkey'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nostr_get_notes (which fetches notes) and nostr_post_note (which creates content).

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 by mentioning the required parameter ('pubkey') and the payment requirement ('Price: 5 sat'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nostr_get_notes or provide clear exclusions. The context is somewhat clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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