approve_nft_for_marketplace

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 fails to mention that this is an on-chain transaction requiring a private key for signing, likely incurs gas costs, and modifies the NFT's approval state. The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical marketplace names.

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 a single, directly front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the action and the target, making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a transaction tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about execution flow, expected results, or prerequisites. The schema covers parameter formats, but the description does not explain what 'approve' entails operationally (e.g., gas, signing, state change).

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?

The input schema has a 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficiently detailed, warranting the baseline score.

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 action (approve), the resource (an NFT), and the context (for sale on a marketplace, specifically Seaport/OpenSea). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_token_spending (ERC20) and revoke_nft_approval.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., owning the NFT, being on the correct network) or situations where a different approval tool would be more appropriate.

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