get_nft_transfers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the underlying KaiaScan endpoint, which is an implementation detail rather than agent-relevant behavior, and says nothing about pagination semantics, result ordering, rate limits, or failure modes when the contract is not an NFT.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The endpoint citation is arguably wasted space but it is short and comes last.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: it never characterizes the returned transfer records, ordering, or how pagination behaves across pages. Parameters are well covered by the schema, so the gap is limited to output and behavioral expectations.

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 four parameters (page, size, network, contractAddress) are already documented with defaults and constraints. The description contributes no additional syntax, format, or enum guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 NFT transfer history for a collection.' This is distinguishable from fungible-token and single-item siblings on the resource axis, though it never names a sibling or scope boundary explicitly. Clear enough to select correctly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_token_transfers or get_nft_item. The only routing signal is the resource name itself, which the agent must infer.

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