Retrieve a single NFT item on Kaia by contract address and token ID to view its owner, tokenURI, and metadata.
Get a single NFT item by contract and token ID (owner, tokenURI, metadata). Uses KaiaScan Get Nft Token Item (api/v1/nfts/:contractAddress/tokenids/:tokenId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | mainnet or kairos (default: mainnet) | |
| tokenId | Yes | NFT token ID (string or number) | |
| contractAddress | Yes | NFT contract address (0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the underlying data source (KaiaScan Get Nft Token Item endpoint), which is useful provenance, and 'Get' implies a read-only, non-mutating call. But it says nothing about behavior on invalid contract/token IDs, rate limits, or result caching.
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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return fields parenthetically summarized. No filler, though the API endpoint reference is arguably incidental detail.
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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (owner, tokenURI, metadata), which compensates for the missing return documentation. It is largely complete for a simple read tool, with only error/edge-case behavior unaddressed.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the contract/token ID lookup but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the optional network parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single NFT item') plus the lookup keys (contract, token ID) and the returned fields (owner, tokenURI, metadata). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_nft_info, leaving the agent to guess which NFT lookup tool is appropriate.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related sibling get_nft_info or get_nft_transfers. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.