get_nft_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation and it usefully discloses the underlying endpoint (KaiaScan api/v1/nfts/:contractAddress), but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for invalid contracts, or whether the call is cached.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the source API. No filler, though the endpoint reference is more operational trivia than decision-relevant content.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields (name, symbol, total supply) and the scoping parameter. The remaining gap is behavioral context such as error cases and rate limits.

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 both network and contractAddress are already documented in the schema, including the mainnet/kairos default. The description repeats 'by contract address' without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific verb (Get), resource (NFT collection metadata) and the identifying key (contract address), and lists the returned fields. This implicitly separates it from item-level and account-level siblings such as get_nft_item and get_account_nfts, though it never names them outright.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_nft_item or get_account_nfts, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the purpose phrase alone which sibling to pick.

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