nft_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation and lists returned fields, which is adequate for basic understanding. However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid symbols, potential errors, or rate limits, limiting richness.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and returned stats. It is slightly lacking in error handling or behavior notes, but overall complete for a basic stats tool.

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% as the only parameter 'symbol' is already well-described in the schema with the collection symbol example. The tool description merely repeats the context (Magic Eden NFT collection) without adding new meaning beyond the schema.

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 it gets 'full collection stats' for a Magic Eden Solana NFT collection and lists specific data points (floor, volume, 24h avg, holders, supply). This differentiates it from siblings like nft_floor (which likely returns only floor price) and nft_token (individual token data).

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 for collection-level aggregated stats but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like nft_floor or nft_activity. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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